Razörfist's Spergs Arguing Politics

[wilji1090]

I'd even argue that Lincoln was fully within his rights to do what he did; it was war, and all is fair in love and war. The only people tried for war crimes are the losers and the ones who go overboard, and by the standards of his day, Lincoln was far from the cruelest or the most outrageous. I can name others even before Lincoln's time who were just as brutal, if not moreso, who lived in the late 1700s and early 1800s. I mean, Thomas Jefferson idolized the French Revolutionaries and bought the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon, and what those revolutionaries did with the nobles, clergy, and royalist peasants of France was far more cruel than anything Lincoln did. I mean, shit, even I'd have less restraint if I were in Lincoln's shoes-I'd at least guillotine all the top Fire-Eaters and have their heads put on spikes outside the White House.

FYI, Fire-Eaters were pro-slavery Southern politicians who were the biggest voices for secessionism prior to the Civil War, who desired to create a new nation which permanently guaranteed the right to own slaves. They accused the Republicans in the North of wanting to immediately end slavery, which was false, as Lincoln was OK with slavery so long as it's kept out of the western territories. The Fire-Eaters fully supported seceding from the North and declaring war against it. The blood of 600,000 Americans is on their hands.

Never mind the fact that Washington and Adams both helped prevent the squabbling states from descending into a Reign of Terror style despotism with their combined administrations. Jefferson fucked that up in the sense that his radical decentralization helped form the nucleus for the combined crises of the Hartford Convention, the Nullification Crisis, and the Civil War itself. Mind you, Hamilton would've been worse for the nascent Republic at that time.

But since Razor wants to ask questions about Lincoln's un-Constitutional actions, I'll raise the following question: Where in the Constitution did it permit Jefferson to use taxpayer money to buy French Louisiana? Because I seem to remember Jefferson waffled back and forth on the issue before deciding "Fuck it, I'm the President" and doing it anyway.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I'd even argue that Lincoln was fully within his rights to do what he did; it was war, and all is fair in love and war. The only people tried for war crimes are the losers

The fact that you argue for "might makes right" conduct makes me distrust your narrative that the Civil War was solely fought over slavery all the more. I'll consider the criticisms people are making about Razorfist's narrative, but I don't fully trust either side. You seem to have an aversion to discussing the nuances of what occurred and want to keep it simple, at this point my only recourse is to study the matter myself.

 

[Kenya Jones]

as Lincoln was OK with slavery so long as it's kept out of the western territories.

Hot take but Lincoln was personally an avid abolitionist, and wanted equal rights for slaves, what he said publicly was political grandstanding. But whether it were because it was his end goal all along, or just that the horrors of slavery became apparent to Northerners who never saw what it was actually like, he ended up abolishing slavery anyways.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

The fact that you argue for "might makes right" conduct makes me distrust your narrative that the Civil War was solely fought over slavery all the more. I'll consider the criticisms people are making about Razorfist's narrative, but I don't fully trust either side. You seem to have an aversion to discussing the nuances of what occurred and want to keep it simple, at this point my only recourse is to study the matter myself.

At the end of the day, that is the truth. Those who have the power to impose their will, and the strength to do it, wind up winning. America didn't win the Civil War, WW1, WW2, or the Cold War because it was morally right, they won it because the blessings God gave them made them more powerful than their foes. There's more than a few times when America was the bad guy in a conflict, but won anyways, because they had superior numbers/firepower/logistics, and the same can be said of many colonial empires before and after the US was born. Sometimes they were the good guys, sometimes not. But they won because of what they had, not because they were morally right.

There are morally right factions and causes in the world that got wiped out because they didn't have what they needed to win. For example, the Uighurs. They have every moral right to resist the Chinese occupation and cultural brainwashing that is happening to their people right now. Does that mean they'll automatically succeed? Heck no. They don't have the strength to resist. And so their suffering will continue. Barring a miracle, "might makes right" is the rule of the world. Is it fair? Fuck no. But that is how the world runs.

And yes, the Civil War was fought over slavery, because the people who argued for secession made slavery their top subject. While Lincoln tried to calm down the South and say that annulling slavery as a whole was never his goal, the people who argued against him used the fears of the plantation class that the North might do it to rally the South against the North. At the end of the day, there is no nuance but that. No other cause, aside from "BAD MAN LINCOLN WANTS TO LIMIT SLAVERY!" Hence why LINCOLN WASN'T EVEN IN THE BALLOT IN THE SOUTHERN STATES.

Hot take but Lincoln was personally an avid abolitionist, and wanted equal rights for slaves, what he said publicly was political grandstanding. But whether it were because it was his end goal all along, or just that the horrors of slavery became apparent to Northerners who never saw what it was actually like, he ended up abolishing slavery anyways.

Originally, he said he was OK with slavery. Then during the war, the Radical Republicans managed to change his mind, and he accepted the idea of using the war as a means to end slavery, since the South made it about slavery in the first place, and all the top secessionists were big pro-slavery advocates who hated Lincoln because he wanted to limit the franchise of slavery.

Never mind the fact that Washington and Adams both helped prevent the squabbling states from descending into a Reign of Terror style despotism with their combined administrations. Jefferson fucked that up in the sense that his radical decentralization helped form the nucleus for the combined crises of the Hartford Convention, the Nullification Crisis, and the Civil War itself. Mind you, Hamilton would've been worse for the nascent Republic at that time.

Exactly. People like Razorfist love to heap praise on Jefferson, despite the fact that Jefferson was a big fan of the Reign of Terror, which was literally the forerunner for all Communist purges of previous regimes, like what happened in Russia and China. The very same Communism Danny-boy hates, takes its cues from the French Revolution that Jefferson loves, and Danny-boy loves Jefferson. Ironic, isn't it?

But since Razor wants to ask questions about Lincoln's un-Constitutional actions, I'll raise the following question: Where in the Constitution did it permit Jefferson to use taxpayer money to buy French Louisiana? Because I seem to remember Jefferson waffled back and forth on the issue before deciding "Fuck it, I'm the President" and doing it anyway.

There was nothing in the Constitution that said that the president could buy lands from foreign powers, which is crucial, since prior to the Louisiana purchase, Jefferson was adamant that the president cannot do anything which is not spelled out in the Constitution. Then he changed his mind when Napoleon offered him the Louisiana territory.

 

[wilji1090]

The fact that you argue for "might makes right" conduct makes me distrust your narrative that the Civil War was solely fought over slavery all the more. I'll consider the criticisms people are making about Razorfist's narrative, but I don't fully trust either side. You seem to have an aversion to discussing the nuances of what occurred and want to keep it simple, at this point my only recourse is to study the matter myself.

Considering that Alexander Stephens expressly referred to the foundation of the Confederacy as the "supremacy of the white man over the Negro" and the many documented journals of Confederate soldiers all expressly stating that their desire to protect, preserve, and even expand slavery was their reason for fighting in the Civil War kinda makes the situation all the more simple from a 21st century perspective.

William Garner, 10th AR Cavalry wrote in his own journal in Jan. 1864:

"[Lincoln] declares [the blacks] entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal."

Were there myriad reasons for people to fight against what they saw as an invading force? Certainly. But at the end of the day, the Confederates themselves had to justify their actions following the Civil War.

In July 1896, Clement A. Evans stated:

"If we cannot justify the South in the act of secession, we will go down in history solely as a brave, impulsive but rash people who attempted in an illegal manner to overthrow the Union of our country."

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Hot take but Lincoln was personally an avid abolitionist, and wanted equal rights for slaves, what he said publicly was political grandstanding. But whether it were because it was his end goal all along, or just that the horrors of slavery became apparent to Northerners who never saw what it was actually like, he ended up abolishing slavery anyways.

The North had their own slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation act only freed slaves in the South, not in the North. If what you said is true then why did Lincoln bother mentioning only the Southern rebellion states when drafting the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

[BananaGator]

I'm not referring to the capitol raid. Trump asked Mike Pence directly not to certify the election. He may have addressed it to someone else, but he still tried to prevent the election from finalizing.

Only sort of. Steve Bannon claims the idea was for Pence to reject the electors of the "stolen" states, which would have denied both Trump and Biden a majority and triggered a contingent election where Trump may or may not have prevailed (majority of House delegations were GOP but I doubt a lot of them would have voted for Trump. "Decency" and all that.). Would've taken a day tops. That's nowhere near as big as Lincoln saying "yes I lost but keep me in indefinitely."

Unless of course, you believe Bannon and Co. are full of shit which is perfectly valid too lmao.

 

[wilji1090]

The North had their own slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation act only freed slaves in the South, not in the North. If what you said is true then why did Lincoln bother mentioning only the Southern rebellion states when drafting the Emancipation Proclamation?

To prevent the border states from seceding. Remember, Lincoln's initial goals for going to war was the preservation of the Union. Not the extermination of a vile institution of slavery. In fact, the institution of slavery saw two distinct flavors of Christian awakening. The abolitionist movement started hitting its stride with religious leaders proclaiming the Southerners were godless heretics for their practices while the Southern religious movements believed they were acting in accordance to God's Will in keeping the Negro in bondage.

It should also be pointed out that the Emancipation Proclamation was also designed to keep London and Paris from getting involved in the war.

 

[Kenya Jones]

Originally, he said he was OK with slavery.

He privately said to a friend who owned slaves in 1854

You know I dislike slavery, and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under the Constitution in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down and caught and carried back to their stripes and unrequited toil; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a steamboat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me, and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio or any other slave border. It is not fair for you to assume that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union.... How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty,—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

But publicly in a speech said

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

But you have to remember that when campaigning, Lincoln had to contend with ardent white supremacists. Even the average person, especially in the South, saw blacks as unequal to whites, and in some cases, not human.

Then during the war, the Radical Republicans managed to change his mind, and he accepted the idea of using the war as a means to end slavery

That is most likely true, even privately Lincoln's views on race became more equal than they had ever been pre-civil war.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

The North had their own slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation act only freed slaves in the South, not in the North. If what you said is true then why did Lincoln bother mentioning only the Southern rebellion states when drafting the Emancipation Proclamation?

Lincoln started the process of freeing the slaves overall. First, the rebel states. Then eventually, the border states that remained loyal to the Union, but still had slavery. Then an overall ban on slavery nationwide.

To prevent the border states from seceding. Remember, Lincoln's initial goals for going to war was the preservation of the Union. Not the extermination of a vile institution of slavery. In fact, the institution of slavery saw two distinct flavors of Christian awakening. The abolitionist movement started hitting its stride with religious leaders proclaiming the Southerners were godless heretics for their practices while the Southern religious movements believed they were acting in accordance to God's Will in keeping the Negro in bondage.

Basically, the average Northerner didn't give two shits about slave-owning, some Northerners even supported it, but the radical religious people of the Protestant North were the biggest enemies of slavery.

It should also be pointed out that the Emancipation Proclamation was also designed to keep London and Paris from getting involved in the war.

True, because the average Frenchman or Englishman detested slavery, but the aristocracy of England and France admired the culture of the South and wanted to go for any excuse to invade. The proclamation made it infeasible to invade, since their lower classes would riot if they support a pro-slavery faction against an anti-slavery faction. Then there was also that threat of war which the Russian Tsar handed to England and France should they ever support the South.

He privately said to a friend who owned slaves in 1854

He said that during the beginning of the war. Then when that failed, the Radical Republicans influenced him to slowly dump slavery as an institution.

But you have to remember that when campaigning, Lincoln had to contend with ardent white supremacists. Even the average person, especially in the South, saw blacks as unequal to whites, and in some cases, not human.

Most Europeans saw things that way.

That is most likely true, even privately Lincoln's views on race became more equal than they had ever been pre-civil war.

As I said, it was the Radical Republicans who convinced him that getting rid of slavery is the better idea. And yes, the Radical Republicans did believe in racial equality, unlike their more moderate brothers who saw blacks as inferiors.

 

[Kenya Jones]

He said that during the beginning of the war.

The letter is dated August 24th, 1855. My bad.

 

[InFO Digger]

The Lincoln Video just dropped.

Holy shit that thumbnail screams "I AM AN EDGY FAGGOT". I took one look at it and began laughing

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Holy shit that thumbnail screams "I AM AN EDGY FAGGOT". I took one look at it and began laughing
View attachment 4268743

The horns are a bit much.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

The horns are a bit much.

So is the halo on Booth.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Lincoln started the process of freeing the slaves overall. First, the rebel states. Then eventually, the border states that remained loyal to the Union, but still had slavery. Then an overall ban on slavery nationwide.

He wielded the power to arrest his critics and used the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, and put down a riot in New York by military force, killing 300 people. If he really wanted to free slaves, he could've done it. After all, constituent disapproval never stopped him from doing what he wanted.

 

[wilji1090]

He wielded the power to arrest his critics and used the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, and put down a riot in New York by military force, killing 300 people. If he really wanted to free slaves, he could've done it. After all, constituent disapproval never stopped him from doing what he wanted.

At the risk of losing the border states to secession too? A lot of the actions Lincoln took were carefully done to prevent the CSA from gaining more support, including rescinding Fremont’s proto-emancipation edict to keep Confederate sympathizers in Missouri from overrunning the government there.

 

[The Fuck's Going On Here]

Started watching Razor's video; something that hits me is in the first few minutes, Razor says the South was mad because they were taxed so much, that the govt was literally supporting itself thanks to the tariffs and shit from them. But I remember reading somewhere that the govt at the time got most of it's money from places like NY which were effectively printing money due to how much industrialization had helped their profits and shit.

Did I misread something or is it one of those "both are true in their own way" i.e. NY was the individual state paying the most tariffs outta individual states, but "the South" as a group was paying more than "the North" as a group.

Also, on the topic of slavery in the south, wasn't it something akin to a crackhead's dependence on crack? I.e. the dependence on slavery was there, but in the long term, it was gonna hamstring them, especially as industrialization led to more efficient technologies, not to mention slavery preventing poor whites from getting work, and concentration of wealth into plantation owners very similar to what Amazon and co do nowadays, rather than circulating said wealth in the economy?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

At the risk of losing the border states to secession too? A lot of the actions Lincoln took were carefully done to prevent the CSA from gaining more support, including rescinding Fremont’s proto-emancipation edict to keep Confederate sympathizers in Missouri from overrunning the government there.

That's another good question, why would Northern states care if the South kept slaves? They too, had slaves. Abolishing slaves in the South does nothing to rally slave-owning Northerner's to his side, and started a riot in New York that he put down with murderous force.

 

[LeChampion1992]

Holy shit that thumbnail screams "I AM AN EDGY FAGGOT". I took one look at it and began laughing
View attachment 4268743

Honestly Lincoln getting assassinated was probably the best thing for the United States to heal. Him being assassinated allowed him to be seen as a saint.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Honestly Lincoln getting assassinated was probably the best thing for the United States to heal. Him being assassinated allowed him to be seen as a saint.

I disagree, it enshrined a lie.