Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Prevalent Is The View Of A "racist Lincoln"?  
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

This is a question I pose to the US members and those interested in American history: How prevalent is the opinion that Lincoln was some sort of a racist dictator instead of what is perhaps more commonly perceived?

I am wondering because apparently there seems to be a subsection of Americans who subscribe to the views of one Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist, who published a book in 2002 called "the Real Lincoln", where president Lincoln is portrayed as being nothing more than a hypocritical, lying warmonger, a racist, bigot and immoral war criminal.

That the main reason for the Civil War of 1861 was Lincoln's aggression towards the South and his insistence on pushing for high tariffs and strengthening the federal state - essentially to crush the independence of the states of the Union.

To quote Wikipedia's summary of DiLorenzo's book:

Quote:
In discussing Lincoln's legacy, DiLorenzo describes civil liberties abuses such as the suspension of habeas corpus, violations of the First Amendment, war crimes committed by generals in the American Civil War, and the expansion of government power. DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln's views on race exhibited forms of bigotry that are commonly overlooked today. DiLorenzo also argues that Lincoln instigated the American Civil War not over slavery but rather to centralize power and to enforce the strongly protectionist Morrill Tariff; similarly, he criticizes Lincoln for his strong support of Henry Clay's American System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Lincoln

So, my question to Americans here is: do you subscribe to this or do you think this person is just posting some fringe view? Do you think it is proper to put modern standards of political correctness to measure the character of Lincoln? Is it possible to take the actions and words of Lincoln out of context with the society he lived in and the actions and agenda of the Southern states?

asturias


Tonight we fly
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3619 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Everybody knows the war was not fought over slavery.

It could very well be Lincoln had racist views, everybody does whether they want to admit it or not.


User currently offlineronglimeng From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 625 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

I guess this thread will lead off 4 years of discussion centred around the 150th anniversaries of the many events that occurred during the US Civil War?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
Everybody knows the war was not fought over slavery


I thought it was fought over "states' rights" which was (and still is) just a sanitized way of talking about the right to southern states to maintain the "peculiar institution".

I've just very briefly gone through some references to Thomas DiLorenzo, and it is hard not to think that everything he says is tongue in cheek.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8959 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

It's known but perhaps not to many that Lincoln, while an abolitionist, wasn't exactly "wholesome" on the subject of racism. Many of his writings aren't very nice. With that said, and as the book title suggests, DiLorenzo's take on Lincoln and the Civil War is not the prevalent theory.

As a side note, I have not read his book, but I have read about him and some of his other writings. I am not much of a fan.

Quoting Asturias (Thread starter):
Do you think it is proper to put modern standards of political correctness to measure the character of Lincoln?

Abolitionists at the time had modern standards compared to non-abolitionists, and the latter ones were judged by those modern standards. So I think the answer to your question is yes.

Quoting Asturias (Thread starter):
Is it possible to take the actions and words of Lincoln out of context with the society he lived in and the actions and agenda of the Southern states?

Perhaps. But I haven't really heard anyone defending Lincoln's less-than-wholesome writings so I can't say DiLorenzo's interpretations are wrong. The fact that this issue was never revealed in my US history class back in University leads me to believe this is a dark spot that is avoided almost entirely, partially at least due to the difficult nature of the subject. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson is highly revered, but the fact that he was a slave owner is often not talked about.

That's my 2 cents as a non-US citizen who is interested in the country's history.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8959 posts, RR: 40
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting ronglimeng (Reply 2):
I thought it was fought over "states' rights" which was (and still is) just a sanitized way of talking about the right to southern states to maintain the "peculiar institution".

State's rights is why Canada (which abolished slavery before the US) and even the Pope had sympathies for the southern states.

An interesting read, while not related to Canada and the Pope, is a Guardian Op-Ed entitled "Lincoln, evil? Our certainties of 1865 give us pause today" by Martin Kettle.

I'd post the link but for some reason A.net won't let me.

[Edited 2011-04-19 08:54:29]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

Quoting Asturias (Thread starter):
Is it possible to take the actions and words of Lincoln out of context with the society he lived in and the actions and agenda of the Southern states?

It is impossible for anyone today to take an objective and accurate view of the actions of Lincoln or anyone else involved in the Civil War.

We simply do not have the ability to recreate all the social and other factos to understand their world. We are too much influenced by our views of history, the views of our parents and today's social context.

When people try to apply modern concepts of things like racism - they are fooling themselves.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11591 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
this is a dark spot that is avoided almost entirely

There are many aspects of American history that are never ever discussed. Like Lincoln was a racist and Jefferson owned slaves and fathered mixed children and Asians were sent to detention centers during WWII and biological agents used against Natives. No country ever likes to show off their short comings. United States has plenty.

Perhaps one theory could be that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. To do so, he suspended habeus corpus and infringed on the First Amendment and made the federal government stronger because, he thought, that would preserve the Union. Maybe if he had just "let it go" he would have saved the Union and the war would have been held off for a while?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Quoting Asturias (Thread starter):
This is a question I pose to the US members and those interested in American history: How prevalent is the opinion that Lincoln was some sort of a racist dictator instead of what is perhaps more commonly perceived?

This is a view held by a handful of southerners.
Was he personally a bigot or racist? Who knows and it really doesn't matter considering he was victorious in ending slavery.

Quoting ronglimeng (Reply 2):
I thought it was fought over "states' rights" which was (and still is) just a sanitized way of talking about the right to southern states to maintain the "peculiar institution".

  
That is correct.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
Thomas Jefferson is highly revered, but the fact that he was a slave owner is often not talked about.

He was also a rapist. Sex with a 14 year old slave couldn't possibly be consensual.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11591 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Who knows and it really doesn't matter considering he was victorious in ending slavery.

What gets me is: slavery ended but it took more than 100 years to start to work toward equality. That has always bothered me. That right there proves there were consessions over "states rights" for the South.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
That right there proves there were consessions over "states rights" for the South.

It is an absolute fallacy to believe that all segregation and racism took place in the South and that the North was full of forward-thinking, benevolent post-racists and everyone lived in harmony. Racism and segregation were alive and well in the entire United States. Atrocities like Plessy vs Ferguson were not just applicable to the Southern states.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Would then the statement, that Lincoln was a racist, genocidal dictator, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, slaughterer of fellow citizens and a complete and utter hypocrite - would that statement be something that only a person on the political fringe would accept?

I mean, would a fair minded and reasonable person claim this?

I am leaning towards the answer being: no. But I'm not American.

Personally it seems to me that Lincoln was in many ways a moderate (of the time) when it came to slavery; while personally opposed to it, he had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. Meaning that he was sort of content with slavery existing in the states that already had slavery, but not in new states - and the US was expanding to the west.

When it came to the question of the Union, he was adamant to maintain it unbroken - and ultimately when the Union defeated the Confederacy, slavery was abolished. But probably wouldn't have been if the South had not seceded.

Like some later presidents he did suspend civil rights in a time of war - perhaps shocking at the time, I don't know - but today.. not so much.

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11591 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1708 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):
Racism and segregation were alive and well in the entire United States. Atrocities like Plessy vs Ferguson were not just applicable to the Southern states.

Yes. I know. But, racism and segregation were and are more prevalent in the South and, to a lesser extent, the West. Think about this: If, at the same time slavery was abolished, equality had been established. The 3/5 rule and "separate but equal" would not have been the progrssive and forward thinking way of life. But, instead, to make intigration back into the Union more appealing, lawful slavery was put in place. Blacks had their place, as it were. That worked for the South and West.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7776 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):
It is an absolute fallacy to believe that all segregation and racism took place in the South and that the North was full of forward-thinking, benevolent post-racists and everyone lived in harmony. Racism and segregation were alive and well in the entire United States. Atrocities like Plessy vs Ferguson were not just applicable to the Southern states.

Hell that applies today even. I saw an article not too long ago that listed the 10 most residentially segregated cities in the US, 9 of them were in the north. Of course the comment section on that particular article was a shitstorm, but what people (at least in what I read) failed to remember that in the south that while the races lived closer together in more integrated communities there were other legal means that kept folks separate. Whereas in the north intentional (red-lining for example) and other means of segregation kept races apart.

I believe thinking that we are living in a post-racial world is a dangerous idea. While we may not like to think of ourselves as racists, we most certainly have our biases that work in both positive and negative ways.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
It is impossible for anyone today to take an objective and accurate view of the actions of Lincoln or anyone else involved in the Civil War.

We simply do not have the ability to recreate all the social and other factos to understand their world. We are too much influenced by our views of history, the views of our parents and today's social context.

When people try to apply modern concepts of things like racism - they are fooling themselves.

I tend to disagree. It is easy to fall into the trap that everything is relative and depends on the context of the time. The study of history is more than just the rote memorization of dates, places and people. Without knowing or have read what Lincoln's thoughts on race were I cannot tell whether or not he was racist/biased. All I know is that he found the institution of slavery to be wrong.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8959 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
Would then the statement, that Lincoln was a racist, genocidal dictator, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, slaughterer of fellow citizens and a complete and utter hypocrite - would that statement be something that only a person on the political fringe would accept?

I mean, would a fair minded and reasonable person claim this?

I am leaning towards the answer being: no. But I'm not American.

It's an extremely harsh statement and most certainly not conductive to a discussion on the subject, particularly considering the difficulty of the subject. I would qualify it as unhelpful even if arguments can be made in support of each point.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
Personally it seems to me that Lincoln was in many ways a moderate (of the time) when it came to slavery; while personally opposed to it, he had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. Meaning that he was sort of content with slavery existing in the states that already had slavery, but not in new states - and the US was expanding to the west.

Lincoln said he would have dropped the slavery issue to avoid splitting the Union. So while he was opposed to all slavery, anywhere, he was not willing to act on this issue alone. In the sense he was willing to do anything here to avoid splitting the country, he was a moderate.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
When it came to the question of the Union, he was adamant to maintain it unbroken - and ultimately when the Union defeated the Confederacy, slavery was abolished.

Indeed, he was no moderate when it came to this.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
the Union defeated the Confederacy, slavery was abolished. But probably wouldn't have been if the South had not seceded.

Brazil had far more slaves than the US did, and was more dependent on agriculture than the US. Took Brazil an extra 23 years but abolition did eventually come.

There's an argument that slavery was already on its way out in the southern states and that they were "exporting" their slaves out west. This is supposed to explain why southern states insisted on allowing slaves out west. I'd have to look further into it for details though.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1668 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
There's an argument that slavery was already on its way out in the southern states and that they were "exporting" their slaves out west. This is supposed to explain why southern states insisted on allowing slaves out west. I'd have to look further into it for details though.



Southern states insisted on allowing slaves in new states primarily as methodology to maintain the stalemate in Congress. They rightfully feared a possible law, or constitutional amendment, to outlaw slavery from the Congress if they did not have equal representation from slave states and non-slave states in the Senate.

There have been several economic studies based on the fragmentary records which survived the war that the primary income source of major agricultural plantations was the sale of young slaves. Not the sale of cotton or other agricultural products. I wonder about how far those 'facts' applied across the South. A great number of detailed records which would support or disprove the theory did not survive the war or the aftermath.

Slaves would not be economically advantageous in most of the far western states. It took large labor intensive operations to make slavery pay. It took high income levels from the sale of the products of such labor to make slavery pay. Slaves tended to be more expensive in the long run than short term hires of unskilled labor.

Jefferson died in near bankruptcy because he never made his plantations profitable with the labor of slaves. I cannot say it was that slave labor was not profitable. The economic system of advance loans for each year's crops, or two or three year advances led to perpetual debt for which the owners of the plantations saw no options, no way out. Nothing but ruin, and possibly debtors prison.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1660 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
Would then the statement, that Lincoln was a racist, genocidal dictator, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, slaughterer of fellow citizens and a complete and utter hypocrite - would that statement be something that only a person on the political fringe would accept?

Many of the older people where I grew up had that view of Lincoln.

Of course most of them had heard stories about the horrors of the War of Northern Aggression from their parents, grandparents or in a few cases, spouses.

My great grandmother died at age 98 in 1958. Her husband, my great grandfather, was born in 1844 (died 1932) and fought in the War from 1861 through the end.

My still living father remembers his grandfather's vicious hatred of Lincoln, Grant and everyone else from the North.


User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15):
Many of the older people where I grew up had that view of Lincoln.

I can imagine. It's been a relatively short time since a civil war eviscerated my country. Many still remember that time and it's aftermath.

Just wanted to add that I agree and approve very much of your previous reply to me in reply #5.

The reason I started this thread, is that I met an American, who held those views I describe above and adoringly talking about the book of DiLorenzo - but this American was neither old nor with any connection to the history of the Civil War.

Yet vehemently decided that this was "the truth" about Lincoln. Thus I was wandering about the prevalence of this opinion among Americans and whether a person espoused to this point of view could be considered mainstream or on the fringe of politics. In other words, would a person like that be taken seriously?

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5386 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting Asturias (Thread starter):


I am wondering because apparently there seems to be a subsection of Americans who subscribe to the views of one Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist, who published a book in 2002 called "the Real Lincoln", where president Lincoln is portrayed as being nothing more than a hypocritical, lying warmonger, a racist, bigot and immoral war criminal.

Given DiLorenzo's ties with the League of the South, I'm a bit hesitant to buy whole hog into his research, especially the "hypocritical, lying warmonger" and "immoral war criminal.". I will agree that it's no secret that Lincoln wasn't particularly enamored with the idea of going to war over the issue of abolition/emancipation. While he was no fan of the expansion of slavery, I believe he would have been fine with the status quo ante bellum, as evidenced by his support of the Corwin Amendment but not the Crittenden Compromise.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
Everybody knows the war was not fought over slavery.

They do? Well, what do you propose the war *was* fought over? States rights, I suppose? A state's right to do...what? Take a closer look at the Declaration of Causes that went along with most of the Ordnances of Secession and you'll see plenty reference to the maintenance of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act. Look at the Cornerstone Speech delivered by Confederate Vice President Stephens which espoused white supremacy. The issue of states rights is a historical revisionist obfuscation to make the Confederates seem "less bad."

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
Would then the statement, that Lincoln was a racist, genocidal dictator, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, slaughterer of fellow citizens and a complete and utter hypocrite - would that statement be something that only a person on the political fringe would accept?

I mean, would a fair minded and reasonable person claim this?

I think that is something that only someone on the fringe would accept and I doubt a fair minded or reasonable person would make that statement.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8491 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1638 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
Similarly, Thomas Jefferson is highly revered, but the fact that he was a slave owner is often not talked about.

Does that make him less of a hero? Can we really expect one man or woman to overcome all injustices of his/her time... Just thinking out loud...

As for Lincoln, he felt strongly enough about secession to kill a huge quantity of people. He imposed his will over a vast population that did not want it. He is an American hero.

One last point, today we revere Germans who plotted against their regime in WWII. If they could kill their superiors or their leader, according to us, they would be brave heroes. And I agree with that! But how often do we advocate a soldier who thinks the war is illegal, shooting his commanding officer, and being in the right? To say nothing of Lincoln's methods.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1616 times:

Well he was an immoral war criminal and thought all the slaves should be shipped back to Africa, because he certainly didn't think they belonged in the US.

I've read the book and found it to be quite thought provoking.


User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1607 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 19):
Well he was an immoral war criminal and thought all the slaves should be shipped back to Africa, because he certainly didn't think they belonged in the US.

I wonder then: would you characterize yourself as having mainstream appeal with that opinion? Would you expect it to have a good support by people in general? If you were running for office, would you share this opinion?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 19):
I've read the book and found it to be quite thought provoking.

Can you give examples of thought provoking points? And have you any idea of why the views expressed in the book have not been expressed in other books on Lincoln? Is it a justifiable historical book or does the author display political bias in it?

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1600 times:

Quoting Asturias (Thread starter):
So, my question to Americans here is: do you subscribe to this or do you think this person is just posting some fringe view?

Yes, he is on the fringe. But there is an element of truth in what he says. Lincoln did not care that much about slavery one way or another, although generally he wanted to see it ended - although not enough to fight a war over it.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

I believe he issued the Emancipation Proclamation for the sole purpose of throwing a wrench into the Southern war effort. I also believe that had he presided over a post-war Union, he would have started efforts to ship black people back to Africa, the West Indies, South America - anywhere but keep them in the US.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8959 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 14):

Thanks for adding that, quite interesting.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 17):
They do? Well, what do you propose the war *was* fought over? States rights, I suppose? A state's right to do...what? Take a closer look at the Declaration of Causes that went along with most of the Ordnances of Secession and you'll see plenty reference to the maintenance of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act. Look at the Cornerstone Speech delivered by Confederate Vice President Stephens which espoused white supremacy. The issue of states rights is a historical revisionist obfuscation to make the Confederates seem "less bad."

DiLorenzo does not attempt to make the Confederates look "less bad". That assumption is inaccurate.

He often points to cases where the Federal government was a roadblock to ending slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act being one of them (an example of the federal government violating state's rights to protect the institution of slavery).

Check out the piece in reply#4. It's entirely possible to criticize Lincoln without agreeing with the Confederates and this does not have to come down to political lines. In fact, this thread is evidence of this, it's been remarkably civil thus thus far.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7297 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
He was also a rapist. Sex with a 14 year old slave couldn't possibly be consensual.

Did they even have an age of concent back then?


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5386 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):

DiLorenzo does not attempt to make the Confederates look "less bad". That assumption is inaccurate.

Please read my post more closely. I was referring to the peculiar habit that many revisionist historians have of cloaking the Civil War in this nebulous concept of "states rights" without explicating what "rights" the Southern states were afraid were going to be curtailed by the Lincoln administration. I was not referring to DiLorenzo in particular. As for the Guardian editorial - I'll read through it this evening when I return home.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
25 rfields5421 : No, while not practiced universally especially in the cities, marriage at age 14 for girls was not uncommon. The husband was usually 10-15 years olde
26 PPVRA : The right to secession/nullification is what is usually meant by it. Sorry if I missed your point.
27 Post contains links MD-90 : Mainstream appeal? Not at all in the US. Every American educated in the state schools is taught to revere Lincoln for his courageous war to keep the
28 Asturias : Many thanks MD-90, very informative and to the point. You've given me much to think about. asturias
29 windy95 : But before the war he was not for letting the slaves free here. He wanted to ship them all back to Africa/Liberia. States rights was the real reason.
30 Asturias : Absoloutly right, as far as I can tell. Lincoln thought it most prudent to send the slaves back to whence they came, basically. Liberia had already b
31 Post contains links LMP737 : If Lincoln were this power hungry dictator that a handful of people make him out to be then he would not have bothered with the election of 1864. An
32 PPVRA : In the end, winners write the history books. That doesn't make them necessarily factual.
33 ltbewr : As several posters have noted, Abraham Lincoln had a complex, nuanced, contradictory and changing view of enslavement and it is not well discussed in
34 Post contains links MD-90 : It was all about the money, as such things usually are. I think Kirkpatrick Sales states it quite well in this article. This excerpt is a bit lengthy
35 DeltaMD90 : Yeah I doubt the North was the anti-slavery force of good a lot of people think they are. Lincoln might've been racist, but I believe most people back
36 Superfly : That's why I used the term "rapist" and not ephebophile. Speaking of slavery, it still exist today in Mauritania and a number of other north African
37 mariner : In the slave states, slaves had no rights. They were property. Slaves could be killed and no questions asked. Only "useful" slaves had any kind of ba
38 LMP737 : Then there are the revisionists who years latter twist and cherry pick historical facts. Or in some cases make up their own "facts". Fact, the reason
39 Flighty : Of course he was probably "racist" by our 2011 standards. But it is not fair for us to judge that way. We, too are guilty of ethical weaknesses and f
40 PPVRA : It is false to say the war was caused by slavery. The war was caused by secession and Lincoln's refusal to accept it. Lincoln himself has said this.
41 garnetpalmetto : But what sparked secession if not slavery? Again, read Georgia's, Mississippi's, South Carolina's, and Texas' Declarations of Causes of Secession. Re
42 LMP737 : Even though slavery is the over riding theme of said document, tariffs are not mentioned at all, and taxes are only mentioned once. The taxes mention
43 PPVRA : The only dishonest thing here have been your arguments such as this one. Are you trying to say something with this? Why is it your "favorite"?
44 rfields5421 : There are thousands of people living in illegal slavery today in the United States, and most other countries. Most are young girls forced into the se
45 PPVRA : Slavery was an issue in secession, but the issue of whether secession is to be allowed is an entirely separate matter. A better analogy, IMO, is like
46 garnetpalmetto : Fair enough - just to make sure I understand you, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement on the casus belli. To you, if I understand correctly,
47 BN747 : Before he was assassinated, MLK stated most whites were unconsciously racist. What he meant by that most likely was that at some point in the life of
48 mariner : Why did Massachusetts consider secession in 1814? It wasn't slavery. mariner
49 Post contains images garnetpalmetto : I assume you're talking about the Hartford Convention which had representatives from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. That's great, but
50 BN747 : Usually what sparks 'secession' is a hack trying to fatten his pockets...he just has to disguise it 'as the right thing to do.' Like the recent fools
51 mariner : The issue, in both cases, was profound disagreement with, and the power ceded to, the Federal government. In each case it was about the state economy
52 Post contains links and images MD-90 : Some of this is oversimplified. There were great differences in how slaves were treated depended upon the laws of the state and the opinions of the i
53 Post contains images Superfly : Incorrect. I'm talking about 'legal', government sanctioned slavery. What you're pointing out is very illegal and punishment is very still when perpe
54 mariner : Louisiana was always different, because of the French and Catholic influence, but even so, there were slave revolts there, put down by the US Army. N
55 BN747 : These laws were like laws of today...on the books and that's it. Meaning that just as people flaunt laws today from jaywalking to insider trading. Th
56 rfields5421 : But back then, and to a certain extent even today, Louisiana is two very different states within one border and under one government. South of Baton
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Dangerous Is The Vapor/mist Form Of AlCl3? posted Tue Sep 10 2002 19:31:18 by Lehpron
Just How Stupid Is The Military? posted Mon Dec 6 2010 20:29:34 by Ken777
What Is The Meaning Of Your Screen Name? posted Sat Oct 30 2010 17:53:19 by UAL747
Just How Bad Is The VA? posted Sat May 15 2010 10:03:13 by Ken777
What Is The Future Of The GOP? posted Sat Jun 6 2009 12:19:33 by Falcon84
What Is The Purpose Of Widescreen? posted Tue May 12 2009 14:08:12 by 747srule
"Nordic Model Is The Future Of Capitalism" posted Thu Mar 26 2009 02:23:40 by AverageUser
What Is The Name Of This Music? posted Sat Mar 14 2009 14:51:33 by Dragon-wings
Bailout Recp. This Is The Demise Of A Civilization posted Thu Jan 29 2009 16:28:03 by Mortyman
Is The Health Of A Candidate Important? posted Sat Nov 8 2008 21:45:22 by Tsaord