What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
179 Comments
- KokomoNYC, on 06/13/2009, -1/+84"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot and kill him."
-Mark Twain - marmotjmarmot, on 06/13/2009, -4/+45It's a joke, It was a horrible time for all concerned.
While I am surrounded by those who wish for the return of a Southern Empire down here, I have no illusions why it was fought, or the terrible price paid on both sides. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the simple explanation "it was about slavery" is not the whole truth. - gbudavid, on 06/13/2009, -0/+37I knew about Lincoln But not the others Good Article
- marmotjmarmot, on 06/13/2009, -9/+42Sira...down Hera, we refer to that unfortunate period as the "war of northern aggression"
- BrandonJM, on 06/13/2009, -0/+31Dugg for weaponized hot air balloons.
- maz2331, on 06/13/2009, -7/+38It wasn't unconstitutional - there's a specific line in the Constitution that covers it. See Article I, Section 9.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The Civil War was a case of rebellion which absolutely fell into the exception.
That doesn't mean that Bush's denial was permitted, however, as there was no invasion nor rebellion domestically, although it could be lawyer-balled that domestic terrorists are a small-scale rebellion. That would probably be too big of a stretch, though.
But bottom line: Lincoln was authorized to suspend Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.
- maz2331, on 06/13/2009, -1/+20It was the wedge issue that snapped existing tensions over other issues. By itself, slavery would not have caused the open warfare, but combined with economic issues, states rights, and a huge cultural difference between the generally urbanized North and the rural South, it brought things to an explosive boil.
The two factions were polarized on just about every issue, and it finally got to the breaking point. - KokomoNYC, on 06/13/2009, -2/+21There's a reason Wikipedia calls words like "Many" weasel words.
Plus I don't buy that last thing about the Republican Party being formed to end slavery. Lincoln was elected as a Republican and wrote this to Horace Greeley (promoter of the early Republican Party) in 1862:
"I have not meant to leave any one in doubt...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - egemenbor, on 06/13/2009, -3/+21im disappointed that this wasnt a cracked article.
- tzvika613, on 06/13/2009, -0/+17The Civil War was fundamentally about ending secession of some states from the United States. The driving force behind the secession was the dispute about slavery.
Lincoln once said he wanted to 'save the union' whether he could do it freeing all, some or no slaves because that was what his priority was - 'save the union'.
Why Confederate General Robert E. Lee opposed slavery was a matter of his personal choice. He served the Confederacy rather than the United States was because he had more loyalty to Virginia than to the United States. - rjshatz, on 06/13/2009, -2/+18It's sad that I was more amused by the name "Bernard Kock" than the actual story.
- ryrocker, on 06/13/2009, -5/+18"2. Hungry ladies effectively mugged Jefferson Davis"
at first i thought it said "Hungarian Ladies..." and i was like, "yeah, hungarian women will ***** you up!" - inactive, on 06/13/2009, -21/+34How about the story of Lincolns unlawful suspension of Habeas Corpus?.
- Chairboy, on 06/13/2009, -0/+13Harper's Ferry was an inside job.
- asgardshill, on 06/13/2009, -1/+13FTA:
"In contrast, the paddle-powered Alligator submarine saw exactly zero days of combat (which is why it can't officially be called the U.S.S. Alligator)."
Bull. A US naval vessel does not have to see combat in order to be named the U.S.S. whatever. If the writer was trying to say that the U.S.S. Alligator had not yet been commissioned, then he might have a point. But whether a vessel has seen combat or not has no bearing on the sobriquet U.S.S. when referring to it.
CNN usually does better fact-checking than this.
I'm a bit surprised that the Alligator's grave hasn't yet been found. The waters off North Carolina aren't that deep. - Lazydriver, on 06/13/2009, -0/+12Actually, Nixon abandoned the gold standard. If Lincoln did anything, it's debased it. Nothing more. (If he did that, to begin with.)
- gn84, on 06/13/2009, -2/+14Congress went along with pretty much everything Lincoln wanted. Why? Because one congressman who did oppose him was thrown in prison and deported without a trial (Lincoln tried to bribe his followers with lighter sentencing...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham - MOJIRA, on 06/13/2009, -1/+12Hungry Hungarians = you're really *****.
- MrTea, on 06/13/2009, -2/+12what the *****?
- partyboobytrap, on 06/13/2009, -2/+12"pulled a Mulan"
- regeya, on 06/13/2009, -2/+12If Mexico were to declare, "Nuh-uh, Texas was stolen from us, return our property," would you surrender it?
Texas was theirs first, you know. - inactive, on 06/13/2009, -2/+11Where exactly is that written?.
Which part?. - kefkaantakrist, on 06/13/2009, -0/+9You're both right. Lincoln asked (and persuaded) Congress to create the "greenback" currency, which was a fiat currency (not backed by gold). The gold-backed currency circulated contemporaneously. So Lincoln didn't destroy gold-backed money, but he did use fiat money to pay his troops.
- elbergel, on 06/13/2009, -0/+9Dug for sly reference to Beatles' "Only a Northern Song"
- Njon, on 06/13/2009, -4/+13People who think that secession is treason need to learn more about American history.
http://www.daveblackonline.com/was_secession_treas ... & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvliy8rEJDQ & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kuvj6FIefo - marmotjmarmot, on 06/13/2009, -0/+9@Koko:
Well spoken, being born and bred down here, I find myself in an awkward position. I'm not a civil war apologist, but I do take issue with those who think that the war was fought solely over slavery; it wasn't. There's a whole slew of reasons, slavery being first and foremost. I can't think of any one war being fought over solely ONE reason. - KokomoNYC, on 06/13/2009, -2/+108347, you said this: "Lincoln helped form the Republican Party for the sole reason of ending slavery."
That assertion is at odds with the quote I have given you. While it may have been part of the reason, it certainly was not "the sole reason." And do you know that Lincoln was one of those "anti-slavery expansion activists" in 1854? His explanation to Greeley certainly suggests otherwise.
Consider also this Lincoln quote from 1861: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
While I agree that the Democratic party at the time was pro-slavery, it's hard to say there was any consensus in the Republican party about its position on slavery, especially when the first candidate it elected to the presidency was not trying to abolish slavery. Horace Greeley was clearly an abolitionist, and that's why he demanded the explanation I cited from Lincoln, but not everyone put abolition as first and foremost in the early Republican party. Lincoln certainly did not, anyway. - Njon, on 06/13/2009, -5/+13The Constitution authorizes CONGRESS (which is covered in article I) to do it, not tyrannical presidents (article II) like Abe. And even then, Congress can only do so in extremely limited circumstances.
- maz2331, on 06/13/2009, -4/+12Promiseland:
The Supreme Court's ruling in that case was effectively overriddden by Congress in 1863 with the "Habeas Corpus Act" which completely endorsed Lincoln's actions - and went further by completely suspending it nationwide, not just here-and-there as Lincoln had done.
Even if a Presiden't can't suspend the Writ, Congress can do so under the invasion or rebellion exception. - Barrysk, on 06/13/2009, -0/+8They may have been fighting for their culture and way of life, but so what? You could say the same for the Japanese soldiers in World War Two. Maybe their culture and way of life was not worth fighting for or was doomed?
If you want to look at it solely in terms of economics, the Civil War was a struggle between a feudal, agrarian society versus an industrialized, democratic (limited) society. The South was fore-ordained to lose based on the economics. For example, in the south the railroads had many different gagues. To transport goods from one region to another required several stops for the goods to be off-loaded from one train onto another, just because the two rails on the line were spaced differently. The north had a uniform gague. The north could produce what it needed. The south couldn't.
Why was the Battle of Gettysburgh fought? What was the importance? (1) It was a major regional intersection of highways. (2) It had the Union's largest shoe factory. And at the time, a large amount of southern troops were fighting and marching without shoes. The south could not even keep its soldiery shod. - SpinningHead, on 06/13/2009, -0/+8I too was born and bred in the south and often heard how the war was not fought over slavery. There were many reasons, primarily economic and trade issues.However, the south was based on a slave economy and the 1000 or so families that held most of the wealth were fighting to ensure a continuance of the slave economy that did not benefit most southerners. Read the confederate memoir Company Aytch. The veteran makes clear that "It was a rich mans war fought by the poor man". They had entire battalions in the rear to fire on any soldiers leaving the battlefield and the rich were not required to fight.
- darkwing81, on 06/13/2009, -0/+8The article didn't mention any weaponized hot air balloons. They were used for recon.
- brainboy7777, on 06/13/2009, -1/+9If you want a real badass story, search "the crater, civil war". Badass.
- gn84, on 06/13/2009, -8/+15The civil war was mostly about tariffs, trade, and money. Slavery was a secondary issue at best. The bankers in the North never would have gone along with (and paid for) the war if it were just to free the slaves.
- DrummerDudeXT, on 06/13/2009, -0/+7Also the fact that the Union could have lost the Civil War if it werent for 3 cigars that some Union soliders found.
- netant, on 06/13/2009, -2/+9@DDRSkata
There was much more going on at the time than the slavery issue. If you think it was only about fighting over slavery, you don't understand the Civil War or the US at that time period. On the other hand, to say slavery was only a minor issue would show retardation (which many rednecks do). - inactive, on 06/13/2009, -8/+14Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
"the president [...] cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it. 2. That a military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war [...] except in aid of the judicial authority, and subject to its control." - Njon, on 06/13/2009, -3/+9@DDRSkata: if the Civil War was fundamentally about ending slavery, why did some slave states (the border states) stay in the Union? Why did Lincoln once say he wanted to 'save the union' whether he could do it freeing all, some or no slaves? Why did top Confederate General Robert E. Lee oppose slavery?
Read about some of Lincoln's many abuses at http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.h ... - hypocritssuck, on 06/13/2009, -2/+8Really it was all about money, as most conflicts are when you get down to it.The morality issues normally play in later to justify things, and to keep people thinking they are fighting for a 'cause'.
Actually, back then the Federal government was having some dire money problems (does anything ever change?) and the Southern states (who favored the rights of states over 'big government') were unhappy that they were paying more than their fair share of taxes in order to keep a Federal government (that they didn't really want in the first place) trudging along.
They were also unhappy at the high prices they had to pay from the North for farm machinery (since the Northern states where more geared towards industrialization and the south had limited production means). The South wanted to buy their machines from Europe, who would have given them better prices, but the North made that difficult through the tariff system (adding tariffs to imported goods in order to create a 'level' playing field for businesses who can't compete otherwise - or make the money they desire to make).
Where the South made their critical mistake was a 'Screw You' gesture to the North as they were planning to secede. They announced their plans to make all Southern ports no tariff zones, where the Europeans could bring in their goods without paying any extra fees (No wonder the European countries where so pro-South). Since the border between North and South was totally porous, cheaper European goods would have flooded over the border into the North, proving disastrous to northern businessmen and causing the financial ruin of the Federal Government. It would have been 'game over' for the North and the Union without firing a shot.
Before the South made that declaration, many Northern businessmen where sympathetic to the South seceding, after it they howled for the South's destruction.
The slavery issue didn't really become an issue until later in the war, unfortunately the South picked it up and also tried to make it a rallying cry, which didn't do them any favors.
But, as they say, the winner writes the history books.
The Southern soldiers were fighting for their culture and way of life, for what they believed in, the Northern soldiers were mainly just doing what the government told them to do. Maybe that explains why an agrarian culture held off such a more powerful opponent (the North could produce about 10X the guns that the South could) for so long, but in the end, there wasn't really any doubt about the outcome. - HtomSirveaux, on 06/14/2009, -4/+10I didn't know there so many screw-ball libertarians that hate Abe Lincoln the same way neo-cons hate FDR.
- ATL, on 06/20/2009, -0/+6I hate those irrelevant links at the end of the paragraphs.
- Kugelblitze, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6How about the fact that McClellan (sp?) could have ended the war well before Grant came along except for the fact that he hesitated.
- Girrrrrrr2, on 06/14/2009, -0/+6or or... you can give us a link next time
- mille716, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6Kokomo, Lincoln didn't form the Republican Party to end slavery, it's true. However, ending the expansion of slavery had the clear intent that slavery would be outlawed in the upcoming years as free state congressmen would overtake Congress.
A quick word about Lincoln. I think his true views on slavery will never be totally known. You can find quotes to nearly back up any position (such as the "I've always been against slavery" one) though I agree with you that his primary focus was just keeping the country together. Remember, he was a politician. He could never show his true intentions about slavery and keep Northern Democrats, Radical Republicans and other factions in the north still fighting for the same side. - Foda, on 06/13/2009, -2/+8Lincoln was going to commit a genocide? What? Where did you get that idea?
- MOJIRA, on 06/13/2009, -1/+7My new favorite quote. Thanks.
- Remlog, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6Dugg for history.
- vgrisham, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6John Brown had his sons hack to death five Kansans in their homes, including a 16 year old boy. Lincoln actually referred to him as a "misguided fanatic". By the way, guess who arrested Brown? Colonel Robert E. Lee, US Army. After the trial, Brown's procession was led to the gallows under the watch of Major Thomas J. Jackson (who would later be known as Stonewall) of the Virginia Militia.
- netant, on 06/13/2009, -1/+7The Civil War was ONLY or PRIMARILY fought over slavery is a lie. To say that slavery was only a minor issue for the Civil War is also a lie.
Yes, the rich class of the South instigated the Civil War, citing state's rights. But it was the "abolishment of slavery" that was always cited when Southerners felt the Federal gov't overstepped their power. They didn't rally the Greycoats over "unfair tariffs"! The Gettysburg Address was a pivotal propaganda stroke. If slavery was never an issue, it would not have galvanized the religious population of the North to support the Union, and there would not have been anything to discourage foreign nations from recognizing the Confederacy.
The question is, "Would there have ever been a Civil War if slavery didn't exist in the US?". I have yet to see a compelling rationale to show such a war would have come about anyway. - netant, on 06/13/2009, -2/+8Besides, it was the Taney era court that made that Merriman decision, AND the "brilliant" Dred Scot decision which said negroes weren't human beings, but property.
Just goes to show what happens when you appoint BAD supreme court justices. -
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is