Successive presidents have been no less disdainful of your Constitution. "It's just a ****** piece of paper"
Lincoln was one of the worst tyrants in history. His actions helped to cause the needless deaths of millions of people, including the slaves he was allegedly fighting to liberate.
So you think a nation is something is created through force and might, not consent and shared culture. The north was just as racist as the south and still is.
while I have NEVER said slavery wasn't an issue involved...... in my studies, it was more about state's rights to decide if they can have slavery or not. Because if someone in NY can say alabama can't choose to have slavery or not, next thing they could do is say "you aren't allowed to determine your own education system" The north wasn't some moral superior group. They were as racist as anyone in the south was. Very few viewed them as equals. You said it yourself, it wasn't about slavery for them, it was about preserving the union.... that's it. But slavery most definately was an issue..... but like I said... it was a issue that was within a larger issue if you break your arm and the bone is sticking out, both the broken arm and the cut skin is an issue that the person has. But focusing on the cut skin and ignoring what the root cause of the cut skin doesn't fix the issue slavery was the cut skin state rights issue was the broken bone that was protruding
More likely, the US would be a Soviet satellite. That might be interesting were it possible to purchase a human being in good faith. Things being what they are... Then surely your studies included material more compelling than the Declarations of Secession, the Cornerstone Speech and the Confederate Constitution, so let's see it. You do know the original Constitution prohibited states from choosing to live under a state monarchy, right? Then I'd say the seceding states did a pretty miserable job of getting that point across. Wouldn't you?
I have never read one document in which Lincoln even pondered the notion of compensating the south for freeing slaves. I highly doubt the concept of that would even make it into his mind or he would find it even rational.
Very probably. Anyone who thinks Slavery in 1860 was a dying institution creaking along on its last legs has never read Stampps, "Peculiar Institution". Slavery was prosperous, profitable, growing if it could and the largest single source of assets in the United States. It had been dying until King Cotton revived it but the Plantation Owners were just getting ready to put in into home grown mills and factories when the war intervened. All of the racists on here with this veiled paean to the virtues of slavery are really the first who should be thankful. Had slavery survived with Southern victory in the ACW it is almost certain that indentured servitude would not be far behind and the first victims of that would be your poor whites. How would you like to be actually OWNED by the Koch Brothers?
It seems that if it was truly about "states rights" surely there would have been at least a mention about something other than slavery being taken away? But in the letters, all it speaks of is slavery and the non-slave holding states not returning escaped "property" (which is still talking about slavery). So while I'm sure its a feel good moment to say "states rights", sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. To address the analogy about broken bones vs cut skin, that is nice but I think it is more like being shot and killed by a stray bullet. It does you no good to try and understand why the bullet hit you or even who fired it, because at the end of the day, it killed you. Now your family can try to find out the who and why, and maybe they can be compensated at a later date (reparations never happened btw), but for you, it was a bullet and you're dead. Blacks were the ones who were hit with the bullet, I don't think one would care why the South fought to keep them slaves, all they know is that Lincoln and the North went to bat for them and won. Period. - - - Updated - - - Because you haven't read one, doesn't make it not true, now does it?
Well considering I'm a history nut I think I would have found one... I've just about mowed over everything pertaining to Lincoln and there is nothing even suggesting he even contemplated emancipation via compensation - if anything Lincoln would have been opposed to such a concept...
In my opinion, I think they use this line of reasoning "slavery was a dying institution" to try to make it seem they are being misinterpreted in history. You see, the ideology that allowed slavery to flourish was the conservative ideology. The liberal ideology was always about equality and liberty. That's why in a documented vote called the CRA the North voted almost unanimously yea and the South voted almost unanimously No, regardless of "party affiliation". After that vote, the conservative ideology saw who had their best interest (little dash of white supremacy) and that's why almost 99% of conservatives are in the Republican party today. You have a couple of lingering dixicrats still hanging around the democratic party due to union and stuff, but for the most part they are all in the GOP. The solid red south don't like change, they definitely don't like same sex marriage, or the president. Conservative. That is also why you see a lot of misinformation from conservatives regarding the KKK and such, the love to tout that the KKK was a Democratic organization, but again they fail to mention that was before the CRA vote and also before all the conservatives found a home in the GOP. - - - Updated - - - Maybe you just haven't found it yet.
What the hell are you even talking about? That resolution document was by Abraham Lincoln himself. Is the opening for god's sake.
How could Lincoln have bought the slaves when The House would have had to fund the purchase with taxes and introduce the bill to make it possible? It wasn't going to happen in 1789-2015.
Nonsense. It was because the racist southerners preferred going to war rather than doing an honest day's work. Lincoln just gave them a well-deserved (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slapping and put them in their place. Despite all of the whining by unreconstructed racists, he and Washington will forever be remembered as our two greatest presidents.
Except Lincoln actually tried it a couple times with the border states and was turned down. This is the request he made to Congress in 1862: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...text;idno=lincoln5;rgn=div1;node=lincoln5:312
That's nonsense. So slaves are inanimate property, eh? If you own a horse and you mistreat it, the government will take it away from you as well as fine you or incarcerate you. Emancipation should have been followed by compensation- to the slaves for having been used to help build a nation while their owners sat on the veranda sipping mint juleps and raping their children at night.
I would no more honor John Wilkes Booth than I would honor Bill Ayers, Che Guevara, or Joseph Stalin.
Yes, but JFK's allowing the assassination of Diem for initiating unilateral peace talks with Ho forced the unnecessary escalation of the civil war there, because it would have made him look bad in the next election. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis being a 'success', that doesn't fly either; he set off the crisis himself, in Turkey, and then ended up backing down and looked weak to Kruschev and his successor Brezshnev, at a great cost in lives from South America to Africa and Asia as well. It took LBJ and Nixon to bankrupt the Soviets, and at a high cost to ourselves to end Soviet imperialism.
Lincoln and the northern states weren't anti-slavery, they were against the extension of slavery to new territories; that was a non-issue by 1850, as the cotton system had already reached its natural boundaries in the north and the west by the admission of Texas as a slave state. Daniel Webster pointed this out in the battle over the Wilmot Proviso, saying it didn't matter how many states were admitted as allowing slavery, since it was a dead letter everywhere. The new Republican Party had to have an issue with mass appeal to new immigrants, and they chose to set themselves up as the white supremacist party that would keep the new states' populations all white; the rest of their platform was just massive welfare programs for big businesses and protective tariffs, the old Whig 'American System, not burning issues for most voters. They convinced a lot of ignorant people they would have to compete with slave labor in the new territories. Most abolitionists at the time were the 'ship them back to Africa' sort, not antiracists concerned about the plight and equality of black people. Lincoln himself had his 'five point plan' for removal. So, yes, slavery was an 'issue', but only for its propaganda value and manipulating northern racists into voting Republican.
