The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: >

(See in situ)


1) ‘He excercised tryanny by employing the military against it's own citizens’

Incorrect: Lincoln authorized action against the newly formed Confederacy which opened military hostilities on the Union’s Fort Sumter, SC in 1861
Because the Confederacy was also publicly founded upon an unjust moral (~slavery)
and had thus demonstrated itself to be a malicious state, enacting martial law so as to seize militant Secessionists was likewise correct

2) ‘His actions costed more lives than all other wars combined - you simply cannot justify that by any means’

False: your claim was just countered above

3) ‘By your standards - Stalin and Hitler could claim the same use of political responsibility’

False: Hitler publicly stated his immoral ideology
(ex. racial persecution)
"[Nazi philosophy].. demand(s) the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe"
while demonstrating malicious intent by opening hostilities against Poland in 1933

Although Stalin did not formally publish his political ideology, he officially endorsed the "liquidation of the kulaks (wealthy peasants) as a class" on 27 December 1929 and likewise enacted resolutions in January 1930 thereafter

4) ‘Hell, if Obama wanted to confiscate the guns he could claim the same moral responsibility’

I would agree that Obama’s Executive Orders concerning firearm ownership are unethical and should be opposed

5) 'The minute someone is using coersion and force in the name of morallity you can pretty much bet the farm morallity has nothing to do with it'

Disagreement: I see ‘force’ as a neutral term (ex. theoretically compressed energy used to open a door or remove an animal from destroying your property), while ‘coercion’ bears immoral intent (ex. threatening someone under injury to pay taxes against their conscience)

6) 'And if the war really was about slavery and making black men equal - then he should be looked upon as a double failure'

As mentioned above I will concede that Lincoln's politics were confused when the War opened, however I would agree also that the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation
"all persons held as slaves … shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free"
was a civil success

7) 'Black people were no longer called slaves - they were called convicts - and unlike slaves who have an inherent value in the fact that they are assets to a farm - convicts are liabilities to the state - and as such the treatment of slaves paled in comparison to the treatment of convicts. So instead of being a slave to a plantation - they were slaves to the government. Read a little history - as slaves - I mean free black men convicted of crimes by all white courts - now called criminals - were horreduoulsy treated by the prison system - sold out to private companies who literally would work them to death - only to make sure the police kept a steady supply of fresh slaves(damnit - I keep doing that - I mean free black men convicted or crimes)'

If referring to political persecution during the Reconstruction and beyond, I will concede that more extensive measures validating personal agency would have been ideal. However not all political battles are won, and I do not see how this would have been Lincoln’s civil responsibility after his death

8) 'Where was the moral outrage, where is the moral outrage? Hell - this STILL goes on. Exactly - there is none'

False: numerous public figures have criticized unjust laws concerning racial persecution
while the Civil Rights movement led by figures such as Martin Luther King Junior further achieved gradual success concerning personal agency and the virtues of freedom and justice
The contest concerning free dominion continues of course today where individuals face comparable issues, yet I believe that we are graced with a divine conscience to understand the nature of virtue

9) 'Lincoln got his Ferderalism and the south still had slavery. It was just now taken from the hands of the plantation owner and put in the hands of well conncected contractors'

Civilly incorrect in that abduction, indentured labor and human proprietorship has been outlawed in the US
Otherwise different forms of political subjugation unfortunately remain, and I suppose that is why we are in the midst of discussion on the Daily Paul

10) 'The reality is that the South would have fell rather quickly if the North had let them secede and granted freedom to any black person in a northern state. The North could have froze southern assets and banned trade with them. Britian would have followed the North and banned trade as well. The North then could have used the Navy to intercept slave ships in international waters(they would have had the help of the British in this endevour as well). The point is there were MANY other options to consider that would have made more sense politically'

Perhaps, while the point of your conjecture is mute regarding the subject of the American Civil War IMO since Lincoln's judgment was correct about the demonstrably malicious Confederacy

11) 'the use political morallity is just plain silly'

Disagreement upon the basis of civil law which judges criminal intent through conscientious choice