CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
What do you think that I'll think? You think that I'll actually agree with a single thing that they do? I couldn't care less about a government not smart enough to realize that I'd be the best leader.
I think it comes down to this. Who can best make the decisions to govern your own life? You, or business suits at a desk? Remember capitalism, fame, Hollywood, and immaturity runs this nation.
Hm well you should define "Our Government" because their are people from different parts of the world on here.
Anyway, the US government should be striped of A LOT of power.
Back in the good old days before Abe Lincoln declare the civil war on the south, the states had more power over themselves. Now it's vice-versa the government has more power over states then the states have over themselves.
The only reason why the U.S government has more power over the states is because having the states so powerful wasn't working. It was more like separate countries under the same name instead of being united.
No the reason is because Abraham Lincoln after the Civil War (He started) took away the power of the states because he believed they had to much power.
The South wanted to separate from the Union because Lincoln was taxing the shit out of them with tariffs. The South was the Physical labor side of the country and they got their supplies from countries in Europe.
So after the war Lincoln took away many of the states rights so they could NOT resist the Tariffs and what not.
Also, after taking away more rights from states the government gained more over them, enabling them to put even MORE taxes on the people in the South so the government would make more money.
The civil war was all about money and power, NOT about slavery.
That is not at all what the Civil War was about. Yes there were tariffs that the South was angry about. But the tariffs weren't that harmful. In fact the South was constantly appeased by the North, who lowered the tariffs when they were in office.
He also didn't start the war. At Fort Sumpter, the last outpost of the Union in the South, Lincoln was sending in food and water, not guns, ammunition, or men, and yet the South attacked the fort anyway. It was not Lincoln's fault. He TOLD them that he was sending in food and water and not men or ammunition.
The South wanted to separate from the Union because Lincoln was taxing the shit out of them with tariffs. The South was the Physical labor side of the country and they got their supplies from countries in Europe.
The South wanted to separate because Lincoln was elected. He was a Republican. He was against the extension of slavery (although not an adamant abolitionist). He wanted to compensate the South if the slaves were freed. It's too much to claim that the South was the "Physical labor side". Factories were springing up in the North, and the West was growing farms. The South was large scale, slave-produced labor, yes. "Labor side"? No.
And that was why they seceded. The actual war was fought to keep the South in the Union, not necessarily to free the slaves (although that was on everyone's mind). After all, a divided America would undermine the Monroe Doctrine and Europe would be able to exert it's influence over the continent by playing the two countries against each other. Additionally, there was no physical border to divide the South into a new country, as there is almost everywhere else. The only "line" was the slave line.
After the South was brought back in, yes it did lose state rights. But the rights it did lose were the rights to own slaves! Lincoln favored an easy assimilation of the South (his 10% plan). There were many reasons for the Civil War (some including power and money) but they were not the reasons you listed.
Now, back to the real debate. If we're speaking about the U.S., I think that it's ineffectual. We see that now when legislation tries to get passed, the congress men and women nitpick over tiny details and filibuster so nothing gets done. It's so annoying. Then other congressmen and women decide to scare monger (e.g. death panels) to inhibit the legislative process. People always seem to treat government as a whole as a frightening specter. But who would be scared of a ghost that can't operate? Perhaps we need more rules to govern the governors.
Read the Book The real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo
In Lincolns FIRST Anaugural Address he agrees on slavery!
In the second Anaugural Address he opposed it so he could have Britain stop supporting the South because, Britain already stopped slavery.
And no the war WAS started by the reasons I listed.
It was ALL about power and money nothing else.
Thomas DiLorenzo nailed Lincoln in the ass with what he put in his books and his books are NOT fake or filled with propaganda you can find his books in Barnes & Noble, public library, and such.
Okay, first of all, you gave no supporting evidence (e.g. quotes or facts or statistics) to help your argument. Therefore, I believed very little of it.
And when I looked up Lincoln's first Inaugural (with an "i" not an "a") address, he seemed to be very neutral on the subject of slavery:
"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." - Abraham Lincoln
He's not supporting slavery (if he did support slavery, then why did the South secede, and don't say it was because of taxes). He's claiming that it's not his purpose to interfere with slavery that he has no right to. That seems neutral to me.
If you would bother to respond to any of my points, rather than claiming all your points (and only YOUR) points are and forever shall be correct, I would be more than willing to continue this debate. If however, you wish to continue to make blanket statements and make unsubstantiated claims, this will be my last post on this matter.
p.s.
I don't say he was a hero, but he wasn't evil or malicious to many people. I don't agree with some of Lincoln's policies: that he suspended habeas corpus, that he intimidated voters in Border States, or that he made proclamations without Congressional consent. I'm not a Lincoln-lover, but I certainly believe he was a great president.
he's not supporting slavery (if he did support slavery, then why did the South secede, and don't say it was because of taxes). He's claiming that it's not his purpose to interfere with slavery that he has no right to. That seems neutral to me.
Wait a minute, your telling me that the whole reason the South tried to secede was because of Slavery?
To the largest extent, yes, it was because of slavery. I thought I had made that pretty clear in my other posts. Even though Lincoln was publicly neutral on slavery, his cabinet and his advisors and his supporters were not. Therefore the South feared for its "right" to own slaves.
It was because of Tariffs bro. The south was not putting up with all the taxes forced on them, as I said they were the physical labor part of the states, Northern states were lawyers, paper working people otherwise.
The tariffs on European imports were tremendous! And your telling me they weren't? Tell me where do you get the evidence that it shows that they were NOT as big and that it was NOT the cause of the war.
Also, the states have EVERY right to secede from the union.
God damn how can you be so arrogent?
Read the god damn book called "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo
Everything written in that book is truth and fact.
As I have said Dilorenzo nailed Lincoln in the ass in that book.
He uncovered all the lies and filth about him.
The civil war was a unnessisary war that Lincoln started.
Also, I notice you do not mention anything about that book in ANY of your replies, are you just scared of the facts in it?
Okay, it doesn't seem like you will ever be convinced by me, nor I by you. But I'll continue this pointless debate.
There was a Panic in 1857. Previously, the protective tariff had been decreased by about 20%. But once the Panic came, the Republicans believed a tariff would be something to help the economy rebound. Makes sense right (after all, it would increase the interdependence of the States as well as help keep cash flow within the U.S.)? So then why would the South secede if it would have been good for them, and for the North? Because they feared that the North would attempt to increase it's power over them, and would then curtail if not stop slavery. Taxation is a coverall for the secession.
"God damn how can you be so arrogent?"
I don't think I'm being arrogant. I'm discussing this as a rational human being, compiling evidence.
"Also, I notice you do not mention anything about that book in ANY of your replies, are you just scared of the facts in it?"
I've never read the book. Therefore I can neither argue for nor against its validity. That's why I haven't touched the subject. Show me some real, physical evidence and I will be more likely to agree. As of yet, all you've offered is that some man has "proved" that the war was unnecessary and based on tariffs not on slavery. Where are the facts you're talking about? Where's the truth?
Okay, so I gave you an AP website. AP. College course. Do you also believe that schools are indoctrinating children, and that the breed out dissent? Distrusting colleges because they are college is about as flawed as it can get.
"This man is respected by many Institutes."
He's also disrespected by many too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Lincoln).
"Haha that book is about valid as it gets nothing in it is a lie.
It also misrepresents some of his quotes. From what I read about it (and I read you're interview) he sticks strongly to his thesis only by trying to discredit a few people who disagreed with him. He's doing the same thing that the people he was complaining about did. I wouldn't criticize Lincoln for his belief in a strong government and union. I would agree with the American system. Lincoln was trying to increase interstate trade rather than making all the money go to the European countries. Also, a divided States would make it easier for Europe to exert its influence, and very soon American democracy would have been destroyed. If you want me to support that, I will, but not right now.
Anarchist!! Absolute liberty may be desirable. Government is a nuisance. A state of lawlessness is something that I would not prefer. Government creates social structure.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Thomas Paine, Common Sense.