Lincoln IS the Federal Phoenix

[Anarchist420]

I saw a political cartoon of him depicted as the Federal Phoenix, which I believe describes him better than anything else, other than "tyrant".
Here's a link to the picture and a summary of Lincoln's sins:
http://mises.org/daily/4887

Does anyone else here think of him as the Federal Phoenix? I've always considered him the father of centralization, the American Bismarck.

If God exists, then I hope He had some mercy on that man's soul, because I sure wouldn't want to go to hell like that.

 

[Thump553]

3/10. Better than yesterday, but you are capable of so much more.

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,

If you were POTUS back in 1860 would you be against the expansion of slavery? Would you have gone to war to maintain the United States?

 

[Anarchist420]

I would be against the expansion of slavery, but I would not have gone to war to maintain the union.

 

[fskimospy]

Can I ask why you make a new thread every day instead of actually discussing your old ones? Are you just trolling?

 

[Anarchist420]

No, I'm not trolling.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm not trolling.

Can I ask why you start a new thread each day instead of actually discussing your old ones?

 

[Anarchist420]

I don't know, but I do discuss my old ones

 

[CrackRabbit]

You really have something against Lincoln don't you.

The man has been dead for more than 150 years, it's time to get over it.
The past can not be changed.

 

[Anarchist420]

While he may have been dead for more than 150 years, his policies still live on--the centralization we suffer from is largely due to him and I'll admit that even the Constitution didn't intend for it end up that way (although the Constitution accidentally let it happen).

Ultimately, he had more lasting impact on the world than Adolf Hitler did.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

how old are you? Do you have a college degree?

 

[Infohawk]

OK this one makes me think Anarchist420 may just be a brilliant troll.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent the Lincoln centralizing effect may be a which came first, the chicken or egg question. As the USA entered the Civil war as a somewhat third rate industrial power,
but by the time the civil war ended, the USA was a class one industrialized nation with some of highest industrial and military technology in the world. And after the USA, the USA used much of the same energy to develop its vast natural resources.

Had there been no civil war, would the USA have developed at the rapid pace it did? Nor can we say that Lincoln caused the civil war, because it had been slowly brewing for 30 years or more over more issues than just slavery.

 

[Anarchist420]

how old are you? Do you have a college degree?

I just finished my requirements so the College diploma is on the way.

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly have to agree that the scrap of paper called a college degree is a poor predictor of posting quality.

But this thread seems to be jam packed with dubious assertions. Some of which are advanced by PHd's. Especially the one asserting Lenin centralized Russia.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I just finished my requirements so the College diploma is on the way.

University of Post Office Box 1985...

 

[fskimospy]

I certainly have to agree that the scrap of paper called a college degree is a poor predictor of posting quality.

But this thread seems to be jam packed with dubious assertions. Some of which are advanced by PHd's. Especially the one asserting Lenin centralized Russia.

Actually it seems to be a pretty good predictor to me. His degree is from a bottom of the barrel college, which seems to fit in pretty perfectly with his bottom of the barrel knowledge of history and politics.

 

[CPA]

I would be against the expansion of slavery, but I would not have gone to war to maintain the union.

I can almost guarantee that the North would be suffering tremendously without the South today. The north would have lost major ports, resources (except coal and natural gas) and farmland and most likely California. And because of that, you have to wonder of NYC would become the financial center of the world, instead of say Houston, Dallas or Los Angeles.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I can almost guarantee that the North would be suffering tremendously without the South today. The north would have lost major ports, resources (except coal and natural gas) and farmland and most likely California. And because of that, you have to wonder of NYC would become the financial center of the world, instead of say Houston, Dallas or Los Angeles.

What you don't realize (as they didn't back then) is that both sides needed each other. While the Confederacy was very rich in farmland and natural resources they had very little in the way of manufacturing.
The Union was very mechanized but lacked the natural resources provided by the south.

If the US had been allowed to fall apart and there was no Civil War both resulting countries still would have great need for each others resources and would remain interdependent.
The big question is where the territories that had not joined the US prior to the split would go.
I disagree that California would have gone to the Confederacy, but there is a large swath of the Great Plains that could have gone either way. Some of the northern areas such as Oregon, Idaho and Washington may have been invaded by the British or joined Canada out of free will as well.

 

[K1052]

I can almost guarantee that the North would be suffering tremendously without the South today. The north would have lost major ports, resources (except coal and natural gas) and farmland and most likely California. And because of that, you have to wonder of NYC would become the financial center of the world, instead of say Houston, Dallas or Los Angeles.

One of the largest components to the cause of the war was the accelerating loss of southern political power in congress to the north due to immigration, diverse trade, and industrialization that over the 1820-50s had really begun leaving them behind. Largely the southern states refused to cooperate on anything, even whith each other and that led to huge economic disadvantages before the war and military ones during it (massive lack of transportation, industrial capacity, required war materials, etc..).

The CSA would never been at risk of becoming a major power for these reasons.

 

[Lemon law]

We can ask endless shoulda woulda coulda questions about the civil war, but I have to agree with K1052 that much of what drove the South to succeed from the Union was it loss of relative political power in the larger developing United State.

With some irony, it was the Northern invention of the Cotton Gin that put the profit back into slavery, and without the Cotton Gin, slavery may have simply died out if its own weight in the USA.

But in the Cotton the confederacy trusted and on Cotton the CSA busted. Had the CSA of America been able to hold the European Cotton spinning business for ransom by with holding American Cotton off the world markets, the confederacy may have forced Europe to intervene on its side in the civil war. But by the time the civil war started, other cotton producing countries were more than able to make up what ever the CSA withheld.