TED Conversations

pat gilbert


This conversation is closed.

Was Abraham Lincoln a hero or a traitor?

Most countries ended slavery without war and 600,000 dead citizens.




Topics: society

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Oct 14 2012: He was a traitor. Until the Civil War, states had the right to secede. States were technically still nations, and though the Supreme Court said otherwise, it did so unconstitutionally.

    When states have the right to secede, the federal government is held in check. When we are one nation, rather than the treaty organization we were designed as, the one government becomes all-powerful, as it is today. Nothing can hold it in check.

    Slavery would have ended 20 years later on its own, with the invention of the tractor. A tractor was far cheaper than slaves. With that invention, tenant farmers were evicted from the land and they headed north to cities. That doesn't mean that I think that it should have been allowed to continue, but it should have been discontinued legally as soon as possible. Destroying the union and making it a nation was just plain wrong.

    I don't know why the government sponsored educations we were all subjected to tell us that he was a hero, other than they don't want us to know the truth about American history. Most people believe that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, but it didn't. It exempted Kentucky & New Orleans for example, and it did not free the slaves in any union state, such as Maryland or those forced to work on the docks in DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia & New York, with their wages being sent directly to their masters.

    How can we fix what is so wrong with our country when our country lies to us about our own history?
    • thumb
      Oct 14 2012: Other nations accomplished the end of slavery without war there were other motivations namely there must have been a 3rd party that benefited as all conflict is caused by a 3rd party. This is not mentioned in the videos but this must have been the case.

      You are very knowledgeable about this how did you learn about this?
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Oct 14 2012: Some years ago, my worldview crashed. I suddenly saw that all that I believed about America was a lie (liberty, justice, and equality for all). So I started reading original documents for a more accurate understanding.

        I began with the Articles of Confederation, I learned as much as I could about the Jay Rebellion, I read letters written among those involved in the constitutional convention, I read the constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, the Articles of Ratification of the 13 states, the original constitutions of all the 13 states, and I saw that the government we have was not the government we were given.

        So I went looking for how that happened. I learned about the introduction of the notion of "implied powers" and found the beginning, but that didn't fully explain it. So I started looking for Supreme Court Decisions and there it was. The Supreme Court threw out the Constitution as the Law of the Land in 1819, when the Federalist government wanted to establish an unconstitutional national bank. (Mc Culloch v. Maryland).

        I learned about Lincoln in the process, because by then I knew that the USA was established as a treaty organization. I also learned that George Washington was no hero either. He was perhaps the dimmest candle in the chandelier, which is why he was chosen as leader. His hero reputation was invented by Congress to encourage donations for the war effort. He single-handedly started the French & Indian War because he wanted to annex land to Mt. Vernon as far west as the Mississippi River..

        Almost all that we teach our students about American history, and much about world history is a lie, as a lot of documentary evidence proves.

        Oh, I also read the Emancipation Proclamation. I do not trust educators to tell me the truth when it comes to history. When I have a question, I go for original documents, not text books that cover up crimes with lies.
        • Oct 14 2012: The original documents are merely (sometimes conflicting) opinions by flawed, mortal men, men who allowed slavery and inequality to persist even though they painted themselves as bearers of freedom. It is a good thing that later generations of Americans have been able to change their country as the world changed around them.

          Your inability to perceive America's flaws (every country has flaws) when you were younger should not be an excuse to seek refuge with the original founders, they were no saints and could not have envisioned the world as it is today, making their ideas, by definition, incomplete.

          The rest of the world views Lincoln as a hero because its judgment is not clouded by an obsessive reverence of America's founding fathers. You complain about American history books lying about America (the ones that I've read were not so apologetic, but then again they were printed long after you graduated highschool), while you cling to that biggest myth of all, the reverence of the founding fathers, or "framers" and their intentions, as if god gave them the right to decide how millions of people, centuries later, should live.
        • thumb
          Oct 14 2012: Interesting, during Lincoln's time who was the 3rd party? Was it Hamilton and whomever his cronies were?
        • thumb
          Oct 14 2012: Kudos for your energy and refusal to be influenced by the opinions of others. Truth is elusive but not non-existent.
    • Oct 14 2012: "He was a traitor. Until the Civil War, states had the right to secede. States were technically still nations, and though the Supreme Court said otherwise, it did so unconstitutionally."

      What good is a constitution that allows for slavery? Lincoln would have been an "I-was-just-following-orders" kind of traitor had he not disregarded the constitution.

      "Slavery would have ended 20 years later on its own, with the invention of the tractor."

      The tractor was invented in 1892, not 1880, and of course it remained prohibitively expensive (just like cars), until Ford started mass-producing them in 1917. Meanwhile this would do nothing to help people who were enslaved sex workers. It does not follow that the tractor would have lead to the abolition of slavery. There had already been organized violent rebellions that included not only slaves but also free blacks and white abolitionists, and Great Britain (the most powerful country in the world at the time) was crusading against slavery worldwide, there is no telling how ugly things would have gotten without the war anyway. In any case 600.000 soldier's lives (many of whom were pro-slavery scum) are nothing compared to centuries of freedom for many millions
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Oct 14 2012: John. I am not pro-slavery. Had I been a white man with land-holdings in 1789, I would not have voted for ratification of the constitution. (The rest couldn't vote).

        I am anti-slavery. I objected when the USA went into Kuwait to defend it from Iraq's Hussein, and the slaves that were brought to England with their masters (mostly women) flocked into English and US embassies asking for asylum. They were turned away because we didn't want to get involved in Kuwait's inner workings.

        I object when christians want women to be slaves to a zygote or a fetus or their God.

        I object to slave labor around the world.

        I object to the tacit slavery that our economic model imposes upon all of us. (the freedom you mention is a myth)

        But the constitution was supposed to have been our protection, and slavery would have ended on its own. As it was, it simply moved from "slavery" to "prison labor" as blacks in the south were routinely arrested as "vagrants" because they walked down the street when working people worked. They were then put to work on the Sheriff's or Judge's friends' farms, where they earned nothing for their labors, and where they waited until their hearing or where they worked out their sentences. The 14th amendment was used more for supporting corporate rights than ex-slave rights. This didn't change until WW1 when the US needed more soldiers but Jim Crow hung around.

        I can't change what was, no matter how offensive I find slavery. But I also know the effect that the invention of the tractor had on farming. I've actually taken the time to learn about it. I learned about it when I began learning about the history of Memphis.

        And though slave women were expected to allow rape, the introduction of christianity to keep slaves in control lessened this offense. The autobiography of Frederick Douglass is very illuminating when it comes to mythbusting. The Library of Congress also has good information.

        Your anger is misplaced on me.
        • Oct 14 2012: I did not believe you were pro-slavery. I believe you are overly optimistic in your prediction of what would have happened to slavery without the American civil war. I also believe Lincoln cannot be blamed for abuse of former slaves and segregation. Lincoln had to make a choice: on one hand there were Southerners who interpreted the constitution in such a way that states could seccede and coud decide on slavery themselves, on the other hand there were 4 million slaves being abused every day, the South was poor and unable to be a competitive economy or survive prolonged warfare with Mexico and European powers, Lincoln thought the latter side weighed more heavily, and that was the right choice. He called the Southern leaders on their BS (calling Lincoln a tyrant while being slaveholders and feudal lords over poor white southerners themselves). Lincoln did what was both necessary and the right thing to do, instead of cowering behind convenient interpretations of unjust, hypocritical laws.
    • Oct 14 2012: "Slavery would have ended 20 years later on its own, with the invention of the tractor. A tractor was far cheaper than slaves. With that invention, tenant farmers were evicted from the land and they headed north to cities"
      How could Lincoln or anybody know that the invention of the tractor was going to occur 20 years later?

      Do you think the slave owners would just release people they held for years in bondage to just go live down the road?

      You don't think the slaveowners would be a little nervous about, say, having revenge be exacted on them for crimes against humanity?
    • thumb
      Oct 15 2012: "Slavery would have ended 20 years later on its own, with the invention of the tractor"

      Pardon my French... but WTF are you talking about? Slavery is still a serious world problem in 2012, and sex slavery still exists in the United States. If South Carolina was a country right now it would be the number one destination for sex tourism.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: David, the conversation is about whether or not Lincoln was a hero. Lincoln didn't give a crap about slavery.

        Slavery is thriving in the world, as I have said. Not the least of which is the slavery to debt that our current economic model demands. And again, not the least of which is the slavery to the Abrahamic God that our government demands.

        the reason I stress the Constitution is because if the rules are set in place, then we, the people, get to have a say in our government. When government assumes total power, the goal post is always in motion, and we are powerless within that government - as we are today - thus slaves to it.

        I recently moved to South Carolina, and will be leaving when my husband dies in the relatively near future. It's a horrible place but it serves me right now. I certainly don't hold SC beliefs, and my part of SC is made up mostly of Northern retirees - though not in large enough numbers to affect an election. We just got gerrymandered out of our voice and even write-in votes are illegal.
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: I'm not arguing your stressing of the constitution... I am saying that hundreds of thousands of African Americans would have remained slaves in the south, for generations, had the north not forced them into the modern world. The original language, written into the constitiution by Jefferson, was designed to end slavery. What Lincoln did, may have been wrong, but it was nowhere near as wrong, as fighting for the right to own people.
      • thumb
        Oct 16 2012: The Constitution was written to protect slavery. It specifically says that states are required to return property that is in another state to its owner. This was written to protect slave holders from run-away slaves. Houses don't run across the border.

        But there were other ways to attempt to end slavery. The northern states could have boycotted the slave-owners and England's slave-made products (cotton and tobacco being the biggest share). The majority of southern farmers were non-slaveholding farmers. They were free to do so, though there would have been sacrifices. I've read that the southern economy was already having its problems because of disparity of wealth (just as today). Most rich people were slave owners. Most poor people were not, and the vast majority of the wealthy lived in the south. The union could have dissolved the unconstitutional national bank that supported the wealthiest at the expense of the majority (as it does today). When Lincoln's administration started issuing greenbacks (fiat money), prosperity blossomed.

        Look at the history of abolition around the world, and see that nations around the globe were abolishing slavery at a faster and faster clip. It was on its way out. If the union had trade treaties with these slave-free nations, the south would have supported them because it would have seemed to strengthen their holdings. They had no problem with many of them. But with slavery already a near-global concern, (even serfdom was being abolished), Awareness could have been promoted and it could have been forced out.

        Then northern states and territories could have boycotted slave products. They apparently didn't want to.

        I don't see the moral distinction you made. Wrong is wrong. There are other ways to make a point other than forming a national army.
        • thumb
          Oct 18 2012: The Constitution was written by Jefferson, with the intent to end slavery. It was then beat up, argued about, and deliberated for almost a year before Franklin and others crafted language to basically let them have their cake and eat it too. The person who could actually write in a manner which common people understood, and who forged the constitution, wanted it to end slavery... My point was, that they had argued about it for a century, people in the south knew it was wrong, and most people couldn't afford slaves anyway. It's always the few psychopaths messing it up for everyone.

          Again you're ignoring something important... The south disbanded the union... We were no longer a country, we were two, and most of the people in the north would have refused ANY trade with the south. Local boycotts wouldn't have been enough, they would have become a sanctioned nation, that the north refused to trade with.

          Just like today, rich people were moving to the places where you could do the most hedonistic and disturbing things on the planet... provided you had money. And, just like today... war loomed on the horrizon. PS... There were wars over way less noble causes than owning people, long after 1865. So you are just ignoring the times. The next three major wars were over "Our country should rule the world, and every one else should die". America hasn't fought that war yet, though we were basically founded on the European version of it, and carried it out west pretty brutally.

          In fact... I think because of our youth and multicultural societies. America, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, may be the only nations that haven't fought the "We're the best, and you all suck" war yet... We also haven't lost it to someone else yet though.
      • thumb
        Oct 16 2012: Barry

        Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3

        No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.