Did Abraham Lincoln save the U.S.?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Gunther, Jun 10, 2006.

  1. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should Abe be credited for being the one who saved the U.S. from those who sought to destroy it?
     
  2. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on your perspective. And what the US is.
    Abe Lincoln both created the US as it is today and destroyed it as it was before.

    Before Mr. Lincoln's war, one might say "The united States are" (lower case u important)
    After the was one might say "The United States is"

    What he did was to change us from 30 something sovereign states into a single, centrally governed entity you might even call an empire?

    So it is really hard to say that he "saved" anything since we don't have what we had before.
    Now, whether or not that is a good thing is an entirely different matter!
     
  3. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dale, how many states were under the U.S. constitution?
     
  4. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Abe Lincoln violated State's Rights.
     
  5. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the states' rights were in subjection to the federal document which rules the land.
     
  6. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the states' rights were in subjection to the federal document which rules the land.
     
  7. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the south was not under the consitution of the US during the war, they seceded so they were no longer a part of the US and the Union Army was invading foreign territory by fighting that war.
     
  8. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, that was the position of the states in rebellion to the federal government. They believed they had freely joined the union, and could freely leave; "When in the course of human events, yada, yada, yada."

    The US held the union inseperable...one nation, indivisible if you will. This, as much as slavery and economic systems, was a major question the war was fought to decide.

    Now, while I find the CSA a repugnant entity for its dependence on human slavery, I do think they had the right to secede. Today, the US supported the right for self determination for the republics of the old USSR, the republics of the former Yugoslavia, and the breakup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. How was the secession of states starting with South Carolina any different?
     
  9. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOu are right on point about that being a major part of the war.

    BTW, you should study a little more about the slavery of that day.
    There were of course abuses as there always will be, there are abusive employers today.
    But it is important that the south in general wanted a peaceful slow end to slavery.
    All of the "Christian world" had ended slavery peacefully. A lot of historians think that it would have ended within 20-30 years in the south as well, without a drop of blood being shed.

    By the way, slavery on the black man was God's judgement on them. Coming to the US where they heard the Gospel was God's grace.
    As the black man in general became to believe in Christ, they as a whole became free. Again, left to its course, I say it would have been over peacefully sooner or later.
     
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lincoln killed more Americans than did Hitler and Tojo. He destroyed the Constitution and now we have the Bush brand of fascism.
     
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, we can trace practically all of the problems back to Lincoln that we have today
    By that I mean he paved the way for what we now have.
     
  12. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dale, I have heard some say that, but I have never seen any credible evidence of such. In any case, 30 years is most of an 19th Century lifetime. Too slow, too long. I try not to judge previous times by today's standards and mores, but human bondage is wrong in any time, in any place. To quote Thomas Jefferson (himself, paradoxically, a slave owner), "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    I think this is just false apologetics for a horrific system. I don't care how well you are treated, if you are a slave, you are not a free man.
     
  13. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, they were not free. My point was that slavery is God's judgement to a sinful people.

    The Bible doesn't really condemn slavery, though it does regulate it.
    I do not believe slavery to be a desirable part of a free and Christian society.
    Let me show you what I meant though, the slaves were not skilled businessmen. They needed to be trained and educated before they were just suddenly let loose.
    It was very unwise to take a few million people and just suddenly make them unemployed overnight.
    We forget sometimes that Lincoln took their jobs away.
    They might have been slaves, but they still have jobs, they did NOT have jobs later and had to scramble to find some.
    Of course many still worked on farm for pay instead of room and board and medical expenses as they had before.
     
  14. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dale, just when I start to think you can think rationally (apart from your undying allegiance to Roy Moore), you come up with a doozie like this. ALL people are sinful. However, owning another person is about as sinful as anything. What do you think the collective sin of the black slaves was? It was not God's judgement on the black man, it was the shameful disgrace of the white slave owners, using God to justify their evil.

    Oh yeah...and if you think the slaves had great medical coverage, think again.
     
  15. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    THey were in many cases sold into slavery by other black aficans.
    Please don't misconstrue this to think that I am in favor of slavery.
    The fact is that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery.
    The black man in Africa was in paganism for years.
    Though the white men of the slave trade were wicked, many black men in heaven today because they heard the gospel in the americas are glad for it.

    The Bible simply doesn't condemn slavery so it is hard to justify a statement like that.

    As far as medical attention, I was referring to what they were owed by the master.
    What they got was beside the point, though I think if you look a little deaper, you will find that the average slave in the south wasn't treated all that bad and it was in the best interest of the owner to keep the slave in good health.

    BTW, what did the slave owner own?
    He owned the LABOR of the slave.
    He did not own his soul. He also owned the labor of the children of the slave.
    But, what did the slave get in return?
    All of his needs supplied. Now that doesn't mean he got plush things, but he never had to worry about where his next meal was coming from.

    This is a matter of fact statement here. It doesn't say that slavery is evil, just that we are free in Christ, yet we are Christ's servant.

    I think it is important to understand the proper perspective of slavery and servitude so that we can understand when Paul talked about being a servant of Jesus Christ.


    Servitude shows a point of dependency.
    The master owes the slave even when he cannot produce, before and after he is of age to be of use to the master.
    We are God's servants. We are unable to fend for ourselves spiritually speaking and God as our master provides for us.
    God in turn owns our labor and all that we do for him.

    Slavery is NOT free labor, and if you look back into history, you may find that industry couldn't afford slavery.
     
  16. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please show me this from the Bible in the context of agricultural slavery?

    I used to be more of your persuasion but quite frankly, I can't seem to find that in the Bible. If it isn't in the Bible, I can't believe it.
     
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    freedom is an illusion

    In this world, follow the money. If half your life's enegry goes to the govt then you are half slave unless this situation is what you want. Maybe communists in the USSR were freer than people in the west because they wanted their life's energy to go to the state.
     
  18. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, billwald
    If we took a look we would find that Lincoln never freed any slaves, he just transfered ownership to the federal government.

    People have done studies showing that blacks have never been given the full citezen ship that white men had before 1861.
    The problem is that now we all are in the same boat, we are all slaves to the federal government.
    The federal government owns our labor.

    The difference here is that rather than taking our labor directly, the take a portion of it and allow us to keep a percentage to take care of ourselves.
    This encourages us to work harder.
    The more we work, the more they get and the more we get.
    It is a quite brilliant form of slavery!
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    None in the way they are now.

    They had their own Constitutions.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was implicit that states had the right to withdraw from the Union. Indeed, Lincoln trampled the 10th Amendment and violated the spirit of the Founders by forcing states to submit to a central gov't led by an executive.
     

Share This Page

Loading...