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.
I'll take up the offer brought forth by pakicetus.
Lincoln was an awful president. First, as the creator of this debate mentioned, the abolishment of slavery wasn't even one of his major goals, if it can even be said that it was a goal, at all.
And while Lincoln did accomplish the abolishment of slavery, eventually, he did so by inciting the American Civil War, which is the worst American war in existence, averaging in estimated 620K deaths [1&2;] (and perhaps even greater than that [3]); yet, he could have accomplished the same goal with little to no violence and deaths.
Hey Cynical, I can't message you because the site keeps telling me that I'm posting too fast. Anyways, before I can tell where I sent you the money, you're going to need to Google Zimbabwean dollar. After you've done so, Ill tell you where the money is
Lets see he started the civil war, invaded a sovereign nation, suspended habeas courpus, and forever increased federal power over state power TYRANT. I'm glad John Wilkes both killed him sic semper tyrannous.
" I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality for the Negro and White races", Abraham Lincoln's speech to the people of Charleston, South Carolina.
" If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it, if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do it." That being said he only issued the Emancipation Proclamation for the well-being of his government. In fact,Union Generals in southern territories freed the slaves in those areas. Also, Lincoln denied the Emancipation twice.
It stared as a war with slavery because that was the epicenter for the other two reasons. Ther economy depended on it and they wanted their rights to own slaves. Once Lincoln was elected they secceded from the union and formed the confederacy.
And the federal taxes. They felt like the federal government should not control and decide their ways of life. After the north depended on their south's cotton production.
So are you going to completely ignore the tariffs on southern ports which forced southern plantation owners to sell there cotton to northern textile mill owners for drastically reduced prices just to make any profit at all. Tariffs Lincoln was in favore of raising.
And why do you think that this happened? Its not a coincidence. I was in AP US History. We studied this. He did what he had to do to bring the south back with the north. The south succeeded but it technically wasnt asccession. It was a rebellion. The south lost their slave labor and their inflation rose radically. I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm pointing out the reasons for war. Why Lincoln did what he did.
Britain abolished slavery without war, and there were factions that played cards. Any groups that are fighting over political/economic/social fueds are factions. Rebellions can be fully formed, sponsered , and raised.
Lincoln declared it a rebellion. It was a rebellion. Government called it a rebellion. Rebellions can be radically different sine you can rebel in many ways. Also Britain didn't go to war with themselves. Can you imagine how it looks to other countries? We are a young country and at that time we had much to learn. I think we are good now though.
I never said it wasn't...Yes, Britain did not go to war, when I was talking about factions playing cards I was talking how discombobulated slave owners and The West Africa Squadron play roles.
Yeah he signed the 13th amendment and wrote the emancipation proclamation (freeing zero slaves) to convince northern abolitionists that the war was about slavey so they would join the army. It was text book propaganda.
Slaves became free though. These were like stepping stones to the fight against slavery. If the textbook is propaganda then what other evidence to up your ethos?(Respectful question)
no is aid text book propiganda as in propiganda done by the book. ans as for your question. ethos? im argueing fact not ethilcs i think you mean logos.
a greatly informative book called the politically incorrect guide to the civil war. it tells the whole story not just the edited PC version they give you in school.
Actually before the war the supreme court declared slavery a constitutional right. Just sayin. I don't agree with slavery or anything but yes they did.
That was one of the rights they were fighting for the constitutional right to own slaves, they also wanted the right to govern themselves instead of being governed from Washington were the Southern states felt they were not being represented.
I disagree with the owning of Slaves and as a lot of people have pointed out the majority of Southerners fighting in the Confederate Army were not Slave owners, also many free Southern Blacks fought in the Confederate army side by side with the Whites whilst in the "non racist" Northern Army Blacks were segregated from Whites and many times once Slaves were "freed" by the Northern Army they were forced to work harder longer hours for harsher treatment, some freedom.
Yes, they did not. But, they did. The south wasn't idustrialized like the north, less mechanized. So, they used slaves to make up for not being mechanized.
You are wrong. The war was a about slavery. Seriously, do not come to my debates without a clue. Good Lord Almighty, i am tired of all of the bullshit.
Reapeating yourself wont make it any truer, yes Slavery was an issue but there were a lot of Northerners that owned Slaves and a lot of Southerners who did not and as I have pointed out once free a lot of former Slaves were treated like Shit by their Northern "rescuers", workng longer hours for less food/pay in worse conditions but still receiving regular beatings some price freedom. A lot of them were still kept as Slaves because there were as many Slave owners in the North as the South, the famous General Ulyses S Grant actually said "if I thought this war was being fought over slavery I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side".
Sorry i'm not going to sink to your level we are not children, I counter your argument with facts from history and you start with name calling and being abusive, come back when you have a proper argument and dont sound like a small child having a tantrum.
When someone responds in a debate by getting personal and abusive I normally equate that with them having run out of sensible arguments and are not mature enough to admit defeat or that they are not mature enough for an adult debate
