I believe if this forum was around during Lincoln's time these would be some of the comments when he was thinking of freeing the slaves:

- Doing this is trouncing on state rights. Only states should decide if they want to free the slaves or not.

- Slaves are doing jobs that free white men don't want to do. If freed, we all starve and crops will die on the vine. Think of the cost of goods if we have to start paying for the labor.

- The founding fathers owned slaves, if it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

- Slaves are in the bible, God didn't care if man owned slaves. We were formed as a Christian nation, and as such we should follow the bible.

- Sure most European nations have already abolished slavery, that doesn't mean we should. That's what makes us the stronger nation.

- Freeing the slaves will cost my children and grandchildren their livihood by having to competed for jobs with the freed slaves.

- I'm not against freed slaves, heck I have some free slaves living in my community and they are my clients, I'm just against it on moral grounds.

- We're going the same way as Rome, they freed slaves and Rome fell; see the connection?

- The civil war was started just to do this, I believe that freeing the slaves was the intention all along.

- I wouldn't have voted for Lincoln if I thought he was going to do this.

- Just because the freed slaves have been allowed to fight in the army does not mean that they are all good enough to be free.

- What about the safety of our wives and children?

-our politicians do their best to confine more people to a life of slavery by freeing the slaves, they are making all men slaves. free... free... free makes more slaves... slaves... slaves!

What's the point of this; the world changes and what seems the most important issues today to argue about, becomes accepted history. Seriously can anyone today come up with a good argument for Lincoln not to have freed the slaves?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PferdHing,

And today, our politicians do their best to confine more people to a life of slavery by getting them addicted to welfare. Welfare slaves... ready, willing and able slaves! All one must do to create welfare slaves is to provide free food, free shelter, free healthcare, free money... free... free... free!

quote:

Originally posted by disagreed:
And today, our politicians do their best to confine more people to a life of slavery by getting them addicted to welfare. Welfare slaves... ready, willing and able slaves! All one must do to create welfare slaves is to provide free food, free shelter, free healthcare, free money... free... free... free!

Thanks I didn't think of that one, so I just added it above.

Curious...whats the point or what are you trying to discuss?

Are you trying to see if some might still advocate slavery?

Lets not forget either, not all the founders owned slaves. In fact, slavery was a hotly debated issue. So much, that its discussion was banned on the floor of Congress 20 years. The fear was its debate would fracture the union. Which it eventually did.

Or, are you trying to tie the slavery debate with those that advocate State's rights today? If thats what you're doing, its pretty weak attempt to knock those that hold State's rights as an important issue. If not, then explain the direction you're trying to go.

quote:

Are you trying to see if some might still advocate slavery?

The government does! I work for slightly over six months just to pay my 'fair share' of taxes. So, at least for six months annually, I am a government-owned slave!

The point is in the last paragraph of the post.

Well, first off, Lincoln did not "free the slaves" with his emancipation proclamation, other than those in Confederate States which later came to be controlled by the United States military. Slaves in the United States remained slaves until the Constitution was amended, which I believe came some years after his death. Also, Lincoln did not consider Africans to be equal to Europeans, by our standard he was quite the bigot. He did, however, show a general aversion to the institution of slavery.

Most of the founding fathers opposed slavery and did not own slaves (I think). And most that did, Washington, Jefferson, etc, had inherited them and freed them at some point. Many of the leading generals of the Confederate States were not slave owners and strongly opposed slavery, notably Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson, who based his opposition on religious grounds.

Religion was used to justify both sides of the argument, but mostly the Abolitionist cause. Think "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If we could not base our positions on religious grounds, we would still have slavery. Well, maybe.

Most European countries had abolished slavery? Maybe. Slavery still exists in some African and Middle Eastern countries. I don't think noting policies of other countries makes much of an argument for the right or wrong of U.S. policies.

Most economists believe slavery would have ended only a few decades later through a democratic political process, due to the institution of slavery it being economically inefficient, and changing attitudes toward slavery. The timeline of when it might have ended is debatable.

Actually, it was the reliance on slavery that contributed to Rome's fall. In the early republic slavery was minimal, basically prisoners of war that were allowed to become household servants of officers or soldiers of Rome instead of being slaughtered. Later, the government forced slaves onto ships to pull oars, and into government owned mines and industries.

The civil war was not started to free the slaves, and no many people would not have voted for him if they knew it would lead to the bloodiest war in U.S. history. As a percentage of population, it killed Americans than WW-II, also destroyed a lot of property. Very unpleasant war.

What's the point?

Well, Yes, I can come up with a good argument for Lincoln not having invaded the Confederacy. It killed some huge number of people, the bloodiest most deadly war in U.S. history, to solve a problem that probably would have faded away on it's own.

The end did not justify the means.

quote:

Originally posted by disagreed:

quote:

Are you trying to see if some might still advocate slavery?

The government does! I work for slightly over six months just to pay my 'fair share' of taxes. So, at least for six months annually, I am a government-owned slave!

I'm not disagreeing with the welfare culture being modern day slavery as it does very little to help someone succeed....just makes them dependent. Instead of work....the "masters" get votes. Don't think I'd necessarily call your situation slavery though. More like extortion.

The point of the thread is to show you that some of the arguments used on other threads in this forum are just as misguided as the ones I used above.

Gay marriage: Bible says no, we are a Judo-Christan nation.

Abortion/Pot laws; states should decide for themselves.

Immigration: They're taking our jobs/They're doing the jobs we won't.

etc.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PferdHing,

I still don't get it. What's misguided?

Yes, the Bible is often used to support one side or the other of an argument. So is Darwin's 'Origin of Species.'

By definition one side or the other is "misguided" in that one side represents "truth" (if you accept the concept of truth, don't want to offend any skeptics out there), and the other side is in "error" (if you accept the concept of error...) But, I don't see how using the Bible, or States Rights, or Economic Theories to support one side or the other makes the argument misguided.

Just what is a legitimate basis for an argument?

Perhaps only secular philoshophers, like Marx, Stalin, Mao? Hitler was a bit too pagan to be included, but Mussolini was pretty darn secular, perhaps noting his opinion would be good.

quote:

Originally posted by PferdHing:
The point of the thread is to show you that some of the arguments used on other threads in this forum are just as misguided as the ones I used above.

Gay marriage: Bible says no, we are a Judo-Christan nation.

Abortion/Pot laws; states should decide for themselves.

Immigration: They're taking our jobs/They're doing the jobs we won't.

etc.

Oh...so you attach slavery to arguments you oppose. Lumping them all together is an attempt demonize others' positions.

Pretty weak debate tactic. How about express your position and support it? If all you can do is attack the opposition....you've already lost.

By getting you to think about some of the arguments on here, I've won.

quote:

Originally posted by PferdHing:
By getting you to think about some of the arguments on here, I've won.

You are correct...I read your post and have thought about the points for almost 27 seconds....you win.

quote:

Originally posted by jacoastie:

quote:

Originally posted by PferdHing:
By getting you to think about some of the arguments on here, I've won.

You are correct...I read your post and have thought about the points for almost 27 seconds....you win.

Hahaha! Did you already ship the trophy!?!?

quote:

Oh...so you attach slavery to arguments you oppose. Lumping them all together is an attempt demonize others' positions.

Fish, it sounds to me like someone(Pf) has a chip on their shoulder!

quote:

Originally posted by oldswimmer:

quote:

Oh...so you attach slavery to arguments you oppose. Lumping them all together is an attempt demonize others' positions.

Fish, it sounds to me like someone(Pf) has a chip on their shoulder!

No chip at all, just putting a different spin on the popular arguments used on the forum.

quote:

Originally posted by PferdHing:
By getting you to think about some of the arguments on here, I've won.

Does laughing at your ludicrous comparisons count?

quote:

Originally posted by scrounge:

quote:

Originally posted by PferdHing:
By getting you to think about some of the arguments on here, I've won.

Does laughing at your ludicrous comparisons count?

Yep

quote:

Originally posted by Chingach****:


Most of the founding fathers opposed slavery and did not own slaves (I think). And most that did, Washington, Jefferson, etc, had inherited them and freed them at some point. Many of the leading generals of the Confederate States were not slave owners and strongly opposed slavery, notably Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson, who based his opposition on religious grounds.

Washington and Jefferson both inherited slaves. They also purchased them during their lives. Neither freed them upon their deaths. Washington stipulated in his will that the slaves were to be freed only after Mrs. Washington's death. She freed them a year before she died. John Adams wrote once that he felt she did so because she was worried they may kill her for freedom.

Jefferson increased his slave amount to build Monticello as did Washington with Mt. Vernon. Jefferson was horrible with his money and throughout his life lived WELL beyond his means. Upon his death, his debt was so great, his slaves were auctioned to raise capital.

Thanks Fishstyx!

I'll make another assertion that may or may not be true...

I'm pretty sure most of the sentiment for the abolishion of slavery was based on religious principals... I could name a few prominent abolitionist to support that claim, but I could also name at least one that was fairly anti-religion as well.

In any case, assume 51% of anti-slavery sentiment was based on religion, would that "fact" invalidate the argument against slavery?

Would abolishing slavery have been wrong if the agrument against slavery was based on religious ideals?