I'm pretty sure there were lots of people who thought Lincoln was perverting the constitution by giving blacks freedom under the law. Pretty sure there are still many in the south and rural areas of America who still feel that way.
Forever Fredi
50PoundHead (02-17-2015), jpx7 (02-17-2015)
EMancipation didn't free slaves, it was his work to secure the amendment. What he did was ensure the Brits didn't get involved with the Confederacy.
Lincoln is certainly one of the 3 best presidents ever. No other president had to fight a civil war and won it.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Lincoln hardly "won" the Civil War. And one could argue he allowed the Civil War to happen in the first place.
Still, I respect Lincoln tremendously. But I do find he is a bit overrated in history among Presidents. I would go top 5 (in no order) JFK, Teddy, Washington, Jefferson, FDR. But Lincoln would be right outside that Top 5.
Last edited by Carp; 02-17-2015 at 01:04 AM.
would like to comment on the quote and OP etc
but Vol is nothing more than a troll that posts and leaves these days
oh well. too bad
cause i don't see why Vol cares about perverting the constitution, he doesn't agree with it 100%
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
South Carolina seceded from the union before Lincoln took the oath of office. South seceded because they saw the writing on the wall.Originally Posted by Carp
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Seceding =/= going to war. Lincoln failed miserably in his attempts to negotiate with the seceding states before and after the war began, and his call for volunteers to extinguish the rebellion actually caused 4 more states to secede.
Last edited by Carp; 02-17-2015 at 02:20 AM.
The seeds of secession were sowed long before Lincoln took office. It was only a matter of time, and when Lincoln won SC decided to walk.
What I was referring to in my post above yours was either or (emanc/14th).
Forever Fredi
Yeah because us Hicks and Country Boys are racist
Lincoln didn't exactly run for office to abolish slavery and give blacks freedom.
To say whether or not the hicks and country boys were racists (so was the North and even Lincoln's view on black people would be considered racist today) is one thing, but the economic system that supported the South was racist, inhuman, and disgusting. States rights be damned.
Lincoln's ultimate goal was to preserve the Union, but his views eventually became more aligned with the Radical Republicans and Abolitionists over time. Now was it strategic and smack with politically expediency? Sure.
He even supported blacks getting the right to vote/citizenship, which motivated Booth to kill him.
Last edited by Gary82; 02-17-2015 at 02:22 AM.
^^^ Yep and the economic and industrial system built in the north was in great part on wealth accumulated from the inhuman, racist, disgusting NE slave-shipping industry. Bastards.
So much not to like about our collective history.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 02-17-2015 at 07:17 PM.
The Industrial Revolution brought us slave wages, child labor and horrible environments for workers. I'm glad a little socialism was injected into our society.
I mentioned it in another thread, but it bears repeating: fortunes were made North, South, and overseas on the slave economy. I hope nobody is glossing that over in the discussion. But that's isn't really at issue here.
I wish that we could step outside of this kind of oversimplified postmodern viewpoint on slavery in the context of the Civil War. I mean, you are seriously going to have trouble finding a sane person who would ever defend slavery -- on any level. However, is it so unfathomable to assert that slavery might have been extinguishable without going to war? We know that abolition was a preeminent issue in the mid-1800s with somewhat broad national support, even in the South. Industrialism was beginning to supplant the agrarian way of life. The tide appeared to be changing, slowly, but surely.
But then you have the war, which came at an enormous cost to the fledgling nation in literally every aspect of its being; lives, money, innovation, global stature, etc. These are effects so profound that they are STILL playing out sociopolitically as well as economically.
Not to detract from the immediate positives of the war, or even to really suggest that Lincoln's strategy wasn't the only path which would have ultimately worked ... it's just sometimes a beneficial academic exploration to revise history.
Last edited by Hawk; 02-17-2015 at 10:52 PM.
It usually does get glossed over in these discussions. I make it a point to not let us forget. ;-) Damn Yankees and all.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 02-17-2015 at 11:45 PM.
The orders from Montgomery to seize all Union strong holds did not come down til Feb 15. South Carolina started blockading and demanded Union forces to abandon Fort Sumter back in January.
Again you said they acted alone. Their "government" supported them in fact they encouraged them in no fewer words to attack.
If South Carolina was acting alone, they wouldn't have consulted the government of the confederacy, knowing that they were doing would be an act of war. Why didn't they start the bombardment earlier?
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
