TED Conversations

pat gilbert

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Was Abraham Lincoln a hero or a traitor?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgH_NlbM0eM

Topics: society
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 14 2012: " Your question assumes I endorse slavery or that is my view, Me thinks the good Dr misunderstands my comment."

    I don't think my question assumes that at all. You asked who would treat their valuable property poorly in some sort of callous attempt to prove slave masters had economic incentive to not kill their slaves, that they would have just let them go eventually. All I said was that was the exact same argument the leaders of the south made to north. As if keeping a slave is healthy for the slave or that they were actually treated well.

    Maybe Im way off Pat?
    • thumb
      Oct 14 2012: They would have incentive to keep their slaves healthy. If a person is brought up in a culture that tolerates slavery they likely did not consider it at all.

      My comment was in response to John stating "How many slaves would have died or see their lives destroyed if America had waited for slavery to go away peacefully" which infers that the slave owners mistreated their slave which was not the case. In their minds it likely was not considered one way or the other. Not to mention that their way of life depended on slaves.

      Just to be clear I'm not defending slavery. But Lincoln did NOT fight the war to end slavery, that was the canard that he used to start the war which was unnecessary.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: "If a person is brought up in a culture that tolerates slavery they likely did not consider it at all."

        "Which infers that the slave owners mistreated their slave which was not the case"

        Owning a human being is wrong. People have known that for thousands of years. It has been outlawed by good human beings, and then re instituted by evil human beings over and over again. Jefferson wanted it outlawed in the constitution.

        People in the south knew exactly what they were doing... and here's the big secret Pat... It was about economics... Free labor, cannot compete with slave labor. A society that believes in a free market, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, must refuse to trade with a nation that does not... or else it will be out competed. Hence many of our current problems. Lincoln was both... At the end of the day, the main right the states fought for, was the right to own slaves... It takes two armies to fight a war.

        People willing to die for the right to own other people... Should not be looked at as heroes.
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: it is a trick .both romony and obama wants to get elected ,it is impossible foe them to reduce the cost of military.that is a lier .when get elected .there will be another policy on foreign policy ..

          everyone knows what obama promises you american ,how much does he achieve .policans can control themselves when elected ,they must put policy acrodding to the interests of some people and cmpanies that he represest ,..
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: David as usual your post is ambiguous.

          You would be amazed at what people don't know is wrong. In Mexico the drug gangs literally do not know that murdering someone is wrong. Consider that if they are co opted into a gang at a young age at are exposed to people who murder regularly then they do not know any better. To them it was just a way of life. You and the good Dr appear to think I'm defending the South and slavery, read what I'm saying.

          It was about economics but not about labor it was about federal income at ports.

          Neither should Lincoln be looked upon as a hero.
        • Oct 17 2012: "At the end of the day, the main right the states fought for, was the right to own slaves."

          "People willing to die for the right to own other people... Should not be looked at as heroes"

          David, I agree with almost everything you say here. But I can still respect the southern soldiers, and some of them as heroes. Most southerners thought they were fighting the revolutionary war again. They were not fighting for slavery, but for the right to live according to their own values, without the tyranny of outsiders imposing foreign values. Slavery was just one of many cultural differences between the north and south, and they were not about to let the north tell them how they should live in any respect. They absolutely would not give up the right to secede.

          Ethically, morally, and legally, the Civil War was full of gray areas and hypocrisy. The south considered the Confederacy as a hero of individual rights, but when they could not recruit enough volunteers they started conscripting soldiers.
        • Oct 18 2012: David there is a lot of misinformation about that time period. PBS produced a great documentary on Lincoln that shows a much more realistic view of the era. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/lookingforlincoln/featured/watch-looking-for-lincoln/290/ This video shows the true nature of the war wasn't about slavery. The northern states were more densely populated. That gave them more seats in the Legislative Branch, and the power to tax the southern states unfairly. The northern states actually have the largest slave cemetery in the country located in Manhattan. I remember reading about this when it was first discovered. There are skeletal remains of children that were worked so hard that the muscles tore away bone chips in their arms. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2003/10/06/2003070668 I would not defend what anyone did at that time, but slavery was not confined to North America by any means. When you look at history worldwide at the time Great Britain and America did something that no other country had ever done to end slavery. Heck there were white slaves in Africa. The marine hymn talks about Tripoli were slaves were freed from the Barbary Pirates. Today 27 million people are still enslaved including in the US. For all the talk we do about the past, we have little regard for the present. Lisa Kristine: Photos that bear witness to modern slavery http://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_kristine_glimpses_of_modern_day_slavery.html I think many Americans like to point their fingers at southern states, because they do not want to admit their ancestors roles in things like slavery, slaughtering of Native Americans, burning of China Town twice in California, theft of Bikini Island, city ordinances that segregated New York City, and the Japanese internment camps just to name a few. Did you know that slaves from Africa were very valuable at the time, and that there were also white slaves? White slaves (indentured servants) were mistreated even worse than African slaves.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: Didn't Lincoln suffer from depression? and his main general was constantly skipping close to treasonous behavior?

        So Lincoln was just another politician that used a convenient vehicle to begin hostilities, like Bush did with WMD's? So what's Obama got up his sleeve?
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: No... We had a constitution... The states ratified it. Some politicians in the south saw a change to the constitution coming, abolishing slavery... So they decided to leave, and form their own country, where you could own people.

          Lincoln said "Hey... You can't do that"... Legally, yes, technically he was wrong, and that makes him a violent dictator... Morally it's a very grey area.

          Obama is going where the UN wants US intervention... Unless Israel goes batshit crazy of course. Romney on the other hand... Who knows, Romney's foreign policy pretty much offers up the world as a buffet to defense contractors. He's the only educated person I've ever seen suggest that America doesn't spend enough on its military.
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: Ken

          It appears he was a sociopath and I'm sure after he committed that many transgressions even a sociopath would become depressed. His main general was no worse then he was.

          Bush doesn't strike me as sociopath.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: Pat... You may have the single worst moral compass, I have ever seen in another human being. The darkness and evil that pours out of you here, is fascinating.

        Lincoln is a tyrant, who knew better. But human beings who own slaves, and drug gangs who murder children, don't know any better. Bush doesn't strike you as a sociopath? The guy who ignored constant warnings from the CIA about the attack on 9/11, and then used the attack to murder hundreds of thousands of muslim civilians in a country that had nothing to do with it... Isn't a sociopath... but how dare Lincoln tell the south they couldn't leave the country, because they wanted to own people.

        People you defend in this piece, are some of the most evil, disgusting human beings, who have ever lived. They owned, beat, and raped people, with legal help from the government. This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen written in the modern world... and I am a fan of offensive nonsense.
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: You have preconceived notions that prevent you from just following what I'm saying which is a prerequisite to weighing what I'm saying.

          Your delusions do not count as facts.

          The thing about morality is that it is what a culture agrees is " right and wrong" which very often is not the most ethical. E.G. the Mexican drug gang members accept murder as right. 4 million slaves who were very valuable were mistreated according to you. This is illogical and you don't present any fact to demonstrate this. But starting a war that caused the death of 600,000 American citizens, who were not enemies, was ok? Between the 2 transgressions Lincoln's was by far the worst.

          By the way it was the states constitutional right to secede for whatever reason, denying which was Lincoln's most unethical and immoral act by far.
      • Oct 15 2012: Pat, it may or may not be true that Lincoln waged the war with ulterior motives, but you cant make the argument and be taken seriously by claiming that the slaveowners would have just let their slaves go. Or that Lincoln should have stayed so steadfast to the constitution that he should have just shamefully stood by and watched slave owning pigs get rich on the backs of their human property. These people were highly intelligent, capable of making intelligible arguments for the owning of slaves, and many lived under extreme oppression in England. They knew what they were doing and justified it based on racist, ethnocentric, and economic themes that are still present in the world.

        "4 million slaves who were very valuable were mistreated according to you. This is illogical and you don't present any fact to demonstrate this"
        Again your making the exact same argument that slaveowners used to justify their ownership. This is just disgusting, your not this ignorant so I have to conclude that your so wrapped up in libertarian ideology that you cant see yourself. Illogical hmmm well lets think about what kind of things you had to do in order to stop a rebellion, how about no access to education, whippings, beatings, and rape in order to induce submission, no access to religion, death penalty for trying to escape etc... If anyone was to do this on a micro scale you would be calling for an execution.

        please look at this...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes



        Really think about what it is your saying here....Lincoln is an immoral scumbag because he broke the constitution and started a major war, however the slaveowners were just victims of the cultural mores of their time. Lincoln probably did not care as much about slavery as our history books would tell us, but I think in hindsight most would agree that the ending of slavery and the brutality that occurred in this wretched institution was worth it.
        • thumb
          Oct 16 2012: Ok lets stink about this. What do people do that is questionable.

          In some parts of South America they did eat humans, in some places they cut off the clitoris of young women, cut the end of the penis off of babies, have a belief called Eugenic that led to 10s of thousand of psychologists determining whether or not certain people should be cleansed from the world in fact more were executed than all of the slaves who were in slavery in the U.S.. They were treated with far less regard than the slaves.

          But under no circumstances was it a better option than dealing with the slave problem in other ways. Not that Lincoln cared about slavery at all. Not to mention the toll it took on the country because of what he did to the constitution which it is not possible to calculate but suffice it to say it was a huge toll that was taken.

          Why do people do this? According to you they knew what they were doing. Yet they did this with full awareness of what they were doing to their victims?

          No they did not know what they were doing you give man too much credit. Most humans are asleep they are not fully aware and very susceptible to suggestion like memes, culture, preconceived ideas, illogical concepts, and other things that make them easy prey for people who manipulate for dubious reasons like Lincoln.
          and
      • thumb
        Oct 18 2012: I provide no evidence that slaves were mistreated... You need evidence that "slaves" were "mistreated"... The words "owned property" and "slave" aren't enough mistreatment for you...

        The idea... That you believe, one human being, can own another, based on their skin color... without it being "mistreatment". Is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard.

        Lincoln may have been a traitor, I already agreed he was both. It's a grey area. I'm a big fan of the constitution... but you keep talking about why Lincoln declared war. You refuse to talk about why the south left the union... Why the south, abandoned the constitution, you pretend to care about, their right to own people. It was one country when Lincoln took office.

        No matter how many times you say "I'm not defending slavery"... When you say that slavery wasn't mistreatment... That is exactly what you are doing... and it explains so much of your philosophy of life to me... it really is beautiful that you took the time to explain this. I now understand you so much better. You believe that owning is better than renting... even when it comes to human life.

        It is the most disgusting, and disturbing viewpoint I have ever heard expressed by a human being living in 2012... but it is very enlightening. I don't disagree with your sources take on Lincoln, save it being black and white. I disagree with you on slavery not being mistreatment... and I can cite mountains of evidence.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.