BS: Gettysburg Address

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:00 PM

Tell you what, Bobert & Everyone- lets all read at least

Goodwin, Doris Kearns: Team of Rivals; The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York : Simon & Schuster, 2005.

Foner, Eric: Forever Free; The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. New York : Knopf, 2005.

Lincoln's first inagural address, available HERE:

The South Carolina "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and "Ordinance of Secession" available HERE:

to start, and then as many of these as possible:

Berlin, Ira: Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America . Cambvridge, Harnard U. Press, 2000

Litwack, Leon F.: Been In The Storm So Long; The Aftermath of Slavery. NewYork, Random House, 1979

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877. NY, Harper & Row, 1988

Foner, Eric: Freedom's Lawmakers : A Directory of Black Officeholders During Reconstruction. New York : Oxford University Press, 1993

Ellis, Joseph J.: American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.

Genovese: Roll, Joradan Roll: The World the Slaves Made. NY, Pantheon, 1972

Quarles, Benjamin: Allies For Freedom : Blacks and John Brown. New York : Oxford University Press, 1974.

Berlin, Ira: Generations of Captivity : A History of African-American Slaves. Belknap Press, 2003

Litwack, Leon F. North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States 1790-1860. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961

Douglass, Frederick: My Bondage and My Freedom. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books, 2002 [Orig. pub: New York : Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1855]

Northup, Solomon. Twelve Years a Slave. Edited by Sue Eakin and Joseph Logsdon. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968. [narrative of a free black kidnipped into slavery]

Levine, Bruce C: Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War. Consulting editor, Eric Foner. New York : Hill and Wang, Noonday Press, 1992.

Harris, Leslie M.: In The Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City 1626-1863. Chicahgo, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2003

and then we can continue the discussion.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 08:00 AM

Lincoln would probably advise W to go to the Theatre...............

Apart from that - Mrs Lincoln - what did you think of the play?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:36 PM

??? I don't think that's bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:28 PM

Im worst ever

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:41 AM

Einstien said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge for knowledge tells us was is and imagination tells us what will be..."

I like that. But things like Intelligent Design are also imagination, albeit in its laziest sense.




I think a debate between Linclon and W would be an interesting screen play.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:32 AM

Sorry, Bobert. As we've all said before, you're a good man with your heart in the right place. But, when dealing with politics or history, I'm afraid I far prefer facts to imagination, no matter what Einstein may have said. (I really don't think he was referring to a debate like this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:37 AM

I don't suppose that 80% of Germans ever gassed a Jew. However it desirable to stop the practice as soon as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

As usual, Lincoln said it best:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued seemed very fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented.
The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it; all sought to avoid it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it with war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide the effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it.
These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union by war, while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the Territorial enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease when, or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayer of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses, for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offenses cometh!"
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern there any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

There is a book about the above words: Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural by Ronald C. White, Jr. It's worth a look.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:02 AM

Well, I have stated my hypothesis about as well as it can be stated. It always difficult going back and doing a "what if", especially since so much time has elapsed and no-one here can really feel and understand the *culture* that existed in 1861...

Yes, it's much easier to deal with "knowledge" which is something that anyone who is willing to take the time can get...

The Civil War (which it wasn't) has been overly sanitized, revised and glorified for public consuumption to the point where noone has bothered to deal with the "what if's" other than discussin military tactics for whioch their are hundreds of Civil War "roundatbles" where people do nothin but that... But their aren't any "roundtables" that deal with alternatives to the war...

I find it interesting that some of my strongest allies here against the Iraqi War won't make the effort to use their imagination some here... For Einstien saif, "Imagination is more important than knowledge for knowledge tells us was is and imagination tells us what will be..."

There's really nuthin' else that I can say that I haven't allready said...

Peace

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: GUEST,The Ghost Of Abraham Lincoln
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:30 AM

As fake as this forum, and just as meaningless, but not as mindless as most posts here.

A.L.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:56 PM

Bobert--

Citing the Underground Railway does not help your cause. "Underground"--so obviously not accepted by Southern elites. That is not evidence slavery was on the way out.

I cited Jefferson (yes I know he died in 1826 and the Civil War started in 1861)--as indication that as early as Jefferson southern elites were refusing to give up their slaves. If anything, the situation worsened after Jefferson--with King Cotton progressively more dominating Southern society. You have produced no evidence slavery was withering on the vine.

I consider myself from the "Dragnet" school of historiography--"Just the facts, ma'am".

That's why I believe that Bush did not make his case for invading Iraq, that the
Stratford man's case as writing Shakespeare has not been established, that there's no evidence of "No Irish Need Apply" signs in the US ( though the sentiment may well have existed), that John Smith was not "saved" by Pocahontas,----and that it's not established slavery was on its way out in 1861.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 04:19 PM

I think Bobert's point, Abe, is that he wouldn't have had to write anything on that day.

Seems to me Lincoln wasn't the type to claim immortailty either. You're a fake ghost, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: GUEST,The Ghost Of Lincoln
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:34 PM

I would beg to ask what words of wisdom, and kindness Bobert would have written and spoken on that day? Would he have bombasted the audience with his wit and intelligence? Unlikely i'm sure. Would his words have tried to bind the wounds of the Nation after such a battle, or just inflame everyone with his corrupted view of history? Would anyone here condem and berate me as a warmonger for simply trying to say something meaningfull and decent for the occasion? Did I not choose words of kindness and contemplation? Did I not speak in such few words, volumes of hope and prayer for a nation to heal its wounds after a relentless Civil war?

I did not think at the time that my words would have been kept in the public mind for so many years; nor expected such accolades for having written and performed a simple public duty to the fallen soldiers. However history records that my speech is regarded as a piece of literature worth reading even today; long after the words on this thread are lost in cyberspace, mine will live on forever engraved as part of my legacy to the nation.

Mr. A. Lincoln

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:39 PM

One of the central premises you keep throwing out as if it were fact is that slavery had 50 years left at best. Then you point out the cruelty of Jim Crow and all that happened in the ensuing years. This is what makes your contention so preposterous. You accuse Ron of having a skewed view of it all, yet I believe its you that has the skewed view. Here is why.

First, to suggest that slavery would have just disappeared is ludicrous. It would have evolved, and not to the advantage of the slaves. One need only look at the capitalist role in this country to know that we would still be dealing with it. Besides this, something are simply so intolerable that they must be eradicated. The "legal" owning of another human being is just such a thing. No amount of "States Rights" arguments can make that tolerable.

Second, the level of violence and anger directed to former slaves would be the same without regard to the winning or losing of the Civil War. The KKK, Jim Crow, etc. did not create the bigotted anger and horrendous acts committed in the name of racial purity. They were simply the alibi's used for these acts. If it had gone as you suggest, they would have found new alibi's to keep the African descended peoples in their place.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 08:16 AM

Well, irregarless of this little side bar that I have thriown into the mix, yes, as far as speeches go, the speech was well written...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: GUEST,Dáithí Ó Geanainn
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:49 AM

Anybody read any of Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels? Set in a world where the South did secede, and charting the history of the two nations right up to the nineteen fifties?
Chilling stuff...

(Incidentally, i'm not American - but, regardless of Lincoln's politics, still think that the Gettysburg address is a remarkable bit of oratory)
Dáithí

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:59 PM

Jefferson, Ron, had been dead for going on 4 decades when Lincoln was elected...

I mean no offense here at all but it seems that yer histoical persective is like, ahhhhh, everything that happened before yer time happened in justa couple of years... Hey, the Founding Fathers were all long, ***LONG*** gone when Lincoln was elected....

As fir the abolitionists in the South Google in "Underground Railway" fir starters...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:53 PM

Yes, Bobert, you're right that lots of the Southern soldiers fought to defend their homes. Who was it--Shelby Foote?-- who quoted a non- slave- owner as telling a Northerner "Why are we fighting? We're fighting 'cause you're down here."

But without the Civil War, slavery would have continued. I'd like to hear some evidence that it was "on the way out".

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM

Q--

"If" the war had been avoided.

1) "If" is a huge "if".   As you know, southerners had already for decades been opposing restrictions on slavery--including spreading it westward.

2)   "Plantation managers would soon have realized..."--ah but economics was not the only factor in play here--the whole social system depended on slavery--and the southern elites were showing no signs of wanting to relinquish their position. Recall that even enlightened men such as Jefferson were unwilling to give up their standard of living, made possible by slavery. Many poor whites also saw slavery as the their ticket up in society.

If anybody has information on the abolitionist movement in the South mentioned by Bobert, I'd like to hear more.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:43 PM

Can't agree with you more, Ron...

But to kill over half million people and subject Southern black folks to another 80 yeears of terrorism???

Think about what you are sayin', my friend...

Slavery would have been history, at worst in another 50 years... BVut that's is worst case. Heck it might have been over before the end of the Union occupation in '76 if Lincoln had played his cards right...

The Civil War (which it wasn't) was a political disaster more than anything else... Lincoln had it within his powers to not ramp up a war...

You are getting terribly confused by the slavery issue in itself, Ron... No, it went well beyond slavery into just what the "United States" meant in an 1860's USA...

This was more about a state's right to some level of sovierinty, irregardless of position on slavery...

Slavery was on it's way out anyway...

BTW, 80% of the Southerners who choze to fight had never owned a slave in their entire life....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:30 PM

One more thing, Bobert. I am definitely interested in "warts and all" pictures of cultural icons, questioning shibboleths, requiring evidence, etc. I find history so fascinating I'm not even tempted to read fiction.

So, if you can find the title and author of that book on Lincoln you were mentioning earlier, I'd be grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:23 PM

Bobert--

As Mick said, I know you're a good man and your heart is definitely in the right place. And, as I said, obviously Jim Crow, KKk, lynchings, etc. were abominations--but continued slavery would have been all that and more--and, under your system, totally legal.

Sure there were some masters who treated their slaves well and there were some slaves devoted to their masters--e.g. one of Stonewall Jackson's slaves followed him through his campaigns. As you know ,slavery was not the same everywhere--by and large much worse in the deep South than further north--I understand that's what Stephen Foster's much-maligned My Old Kentucky Home recognized--check the last verse. Field slaves had it much worse than house slaves (in general).

Southern apologists found justification in the Bible and talked of Northern "wage slavery" as worse. That doesn't fly--I'm sure you know why.

All slavery means absolute power for the master. Why should any person have absolute power over any other?

Maybe you've been through boot camp. If so, somebody had power over you. And obviously that's not absolute power.

The sooner slavery ended, the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:55 PM

Well, true enuff, Donuel, but, as things are today, in 1860 there wer no remaining Founding Fathers to ask "Ahhhh, what did you mean by this 'er that?" and folks tended to have their own interpretations...

Most of the folks in The South thought that the strenght of the Union came from its member states and not vice versa... In other words, the Union existed because of the states...

Now as fir the South being on the ropes after Antietam, that is very much debatable... They had done a decent job holding the Union at bay in the valley campaign and the battles around Richmond but these were purely defensive battles... Sharpsburg, however, was a different story indeed and just by virtue of the losses there in men, weaponry and supplies there set the course for the rest of the war... I mean, lets keep in perspective that the South needed to make inroads into the Northern territory for material and supplies and by late '62, the pickins were gettin a tad on thin side in the South...

Yeah, with 20/20 hindsight, Vicksburg would have made a huge difference but by this time Lee had lost Thomas Jackson and had too many fronts to supply, plus havin' to maintain armies north, west and south of Richmond... Had it not been fir the swamps to the east he would have had to fortify that front as well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 04:24 PM

Slavery, like our current forms of torture was perfectly legal.
Criminalizing what was formerly legal is done all the time.
Those with the money and influence to make the laws will win.
For the South to decide to take their ball and go home rather than stay in the Union under the laws set forth by the Union was mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 03:39 PM

Nah, wee-zer, ain't like Saddam or Hitler and if you think it is you're not following my train of thought here too well... At the outbreak of the War there was already a strong abolishment movement going in both what were to become the Union as well as in the the states that comprised the CSA...

Movements are different than dictators because they involve cultural and attitudinal changes as opposed to coup's...

If you'll read Q'd post above this might just give you some insight into the "what's in it for me?" part of rationale of planatation owners... Like Bruce Springsteen say's, "Sooner or later it all comes down to money" and if for no other reason than that, plantation owners would have figgured out that slavery wasn't exactly econimical...

An, Mick, yes, had the war not been fought it would have taken a struggle, much like the Civil Rights movement... I pointed that out above... And I'm sure some folks would have died, and that is terrible... But when one compares the deaths and the hardships that would have resulted in something which probably would have been similar to the Civil Rights movement with the death and hardships from the War, this is a no brainer...

And I can't overstate my case that the war wiped out the educated, and somewhat enlightened, Southern male... These folks would have been the very folks that would have become allies with the abolishinists down the road... This is a very important point...

Now it's hard to view history in terms of "what-ifs" but as supposed civilized people it is an exercise the would do use all well as mankind to this very day tends to shoot first and ask questions later...

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: PeteBoom
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 03:22 PM

Ahem.

Lincoln won a 4-way race for President, where election day was November 6, 1860. On November 14, the Georgia legislature was addressed on secession. On November 30, Mississippi passed resolutions supporting secession. South Carolina followed suit in December of 1860. January 9, 1861, Mississippi seceded from the Union, followed in short order by Florida, Georgia, Louisiana. Texas seceded on February 1, 1861.

On February 18, 1861, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as President of the Confederate States of America.

On March 4, 1861, Lincoln was inagurated as 16th President of the United States.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued following the Battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam, 17 September, 1862. Tactically it was a draw - bloody mess in reality, where Lee's forces survived because he faced an inept opponent. It was close enough to a Federal victory, however, to allow him to issue the Proclamation without looking like a desperate gamble - instead it looked like a piece of political gamesmanship. It was.

However, it took effect on January 1, 1863, freeing all persons held in slavery in those areas in rebellion and not controlled by federal forces. As for the Confederacy being on the ropes in early 1863, hogwash.

The relatively newly appointed Federal commander along the Mississippi took a gamble and won - tremendously. IN doing so, by the way, the strategy he used was the same recommended by Winfield Scott in early 1861 and rejected by the political types. Scott (and Grant) both reasoned that by controlling the Mississippi, the war would be decided in the East, and any activity West of the Mississippi would do little to change the outcome. They were right.

On the other hand, Lee gambled strongly in the East, and lost. He failed in his objective and lost most of his offensive strength doing so. The same day his Army of Northern Virginia began its withdrawl from Pennsylvania, Grant's victory at Vicksburg was secured, July 4, 1863. From that point, no significant Confederate units moved East to reinforce the armies in Virginia and other locations. If he had beaten Meade, however, he would have been in position to move on nearly any Northern city he chose, including Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia or New York, with no real forces able to oppose him.

The fact was, the Army of the Potomac was demoralized and dispirited following several defeats in succession, thanks mainly due to the inept commanders it was burdened with. What fighting spirit remained was the result of belief in its own strength. Regiments believed in their own officers and in the strength of the units in their brigades as they were proven under fire - not in the politicians and "west pointers".

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 02:18 PM

all very well, but slavery for god sake..........

isn't it all a bit like these people who say Saddam Hussein would have fallen anyway. Hitler could have been stopped from getting to power in the first place.

the trouble is that in there are some real villains and they don't give up power easily, and they are clever and cunning and resourceful - and you can wait for them to die, like Stalin - but they ruin a lot of lives while you're waiting. another 60 years of slavery?....... some people made it as free men in that time, and started to set examples that others could aspire to, and generally kick start civilisation.

sometimes you just have to oppose evil, confront it. Not all the people fighting in the devil's cohorts will be evil, and that's a damned pity.

some people saw the fight against slavery as just such a cause. and if you'd been a slave, I think that's exactly how it would have felt.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 01:17 PM

If the war had been avoided, plantation managers would soon have realized that freeing the slaves and hiring them, with share-cropping relationships, would be cheaper than maintaining a costly system with expensive slaves that had to be fed, housed and maintained in order to keep them picking their 200 pounds. Moreover, the labor force could have been supplemented by the large number of poor whites.

No, I haven't really thought about this, but I remember it from a history class long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 01:08 PM

While I take your point, Bobert, I find it demagogic and unrealistic. I have yet to see effective change without strife and missteps. They are a natural part of the process. In effect, one cannot see the brutality of the KKK unless they operate the way they do. That is not to say that I am glad it happened, just that it is the way of it.

When one does a thorough read of the times, including Lincoln's evolving nature, and puts all this in the context of the times (socially and politically) it is hard to imagine a different route that could have been taken to achieve the result. And when one examines this issue, and compares it to other "social revolutions" I believe that they would find that a hundred years to begin to achieve the result is not out of ordinary.

I believe Bobert's contention comes from his innate goodness. I believe it comes from his personal experiences, desires, and empathy for the put upon people. While I disagree mightily with his contention, I find myself liking this down to earth realist more and more.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:50 PM

Depends, wee... If I had my house torched, my wife beaten to death and me hangin' from the ol' oak tree in after reconstrction ended in '76, bet yer little drum I'd rather wait...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

I bet you wouldn't have waited half as reluctantly as the poor bastards who had to wait an extra 60 years in slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM

Not to sound too contrary here but sounds like both you fine fellers have learnt up the revised and sanitized version of the story... If either of you would like some readin' material I can suggest a good book that might just give you another glimpse... The name of the book is "Lincoln" but unfortunately its packed away in abox so I can't give you the writer's name...

And "emancipation" while sounding very noble meant "now yer free, you got nuthin', we ain't givin' ya nuthin' so fir most former slaves living in the South it meant another hundred years of poverty and abuse and things didn't start changing until the 50's...

Last year I had the priveldge of spending a little time with Sam Carr, who has played drums with various blues players over the years. Sam is in his early 70's now and he and his wife live in a two room shack 'bout 1/2 miles off Highway 61 in the middle of the Mississippi Delta...

Well, Sam's was showin' us some photographs and telling stories 'bout the way thing used to be when he was a young man and he related a story 'bout workin' the door at a juke joint... Now workin' the door meant he was the pistol man... He said that's why he started playin' the drums 'cause he didn't like pistol duty... Well, seems that it weren't unusual fir a fight to break out on a Saturday night and someone shot another someone... "Sometimes the law would come and sometimes they wouldn't", Sam said, "An' if they did come, they'd take the shooter in but come Monday mornin' the 'boss man" come an' get him out an' have him back on the tractor 'er in the fields..."

Yeah, "emancipation" means different things to different folks. That's the point I have been tryin' to make here. What Lincoln did, while on paper sounded very couargous, if takin' historically was nuthin' but a political trick... Had he done it in '61, 'er 62 it might have meant more... But waitin' until the CSA was ion the ropes seemed a little Bush-ish to me... Plus, if there was such an interest in the well being of black folks then why weren't these folks provided with anything with which to start a real life... Here we are some 140 some years later and we still can't talk about repairations....

No, you guys can keep Lincoln yer hero's list... I 'll take a pass...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 11:30 PM

Indeed they did, Ron. He wasn't only a good writer; he was also a good man.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:58 PM

As I said, Lincoln's views on this evolved--towards emancipation.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

Well, Ron, given the way things have gone down, yeah, maybe I could have reluctantly accepted slavery fir another 60 years if it meant that Jim Crow would have died with it... Problem is, black folks were still livin' in terror and being lynched up until the 60's in the South...

The cost to the nation to replace slavery with Jim Crow was not, IMHO, worth it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:51 PM

Bobert, the same could be said for all wars. The same could be said for WWII, WWI, any of them. All wars have a terrible by product, all wars cause bad before they yield the good. And they never totally solve the problems. WWII didn't solve the problems of intolerance, in fact a good argument could be made it spawned the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. Would that be a good reason to condemn taking down the Nazi's?

I think I get where you are coming from, and accept the nature of it. I don't think you are condemning the abolition of slavery. I know you to be a fine person, a tolerant person, and a middling (nyuk nyuk) bluesman. I just think you are off base on this one. Let us agree to disagree.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:09 PM

Lincoln made a speech in congress on September 18, 1858 in which he said he was not favourably disposed to freeing slaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:58 PM

Bobert--

Do you really think blacks should have waited til after World War I for the end of slavery?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:53 PM

Lincoln did say, at one point before 1862, that if he could preserve the Union without freeing one slave, he would. But he evolved in his perception of slavery--before the Civil War, he was endorsing ideas of sending the slaves back to Africa.

He came to realize that they had the right both to be free and to stay in the US--and that emancipation was both good politics (to keep the UK from joining the southern cause) and simple justice (yes, I know the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves immediately--but at that point his intention was freedom for all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:12 PM

No, MIck, I never said that or meant to imply that slavery would "just" disappear... It still would have involved a major struggle, much the way the Civil Rights movement or the anit-war movements were struggles... And stuff would have happened that wouldn't be too purdy... But it would have happened... And it wopuld have happened without Lincoln's stupid war... ASnd it very well might have happened before 1954... I'm thinkin' that WW I would have been the outter limits...

I am suggestin' that the War was a set back for the country, fir whites and fir blacks... Can I prove it? No! Can you prove I'm wrong? No!

But one thing fir sure... America wouldn't have this eternal dirty little not-to-secret...

As much as folks make such an effort to gloify this sad chapter, they will never wipe clean the stains... Maybe that's why they spend so much time glorifying it... I just wish that had the power to trasport each person who thinks that Lincoln's War was justified back to Antietam, or Gettysburg, or Petersburg, or Fredricksburg, or Richmond fir just 10 seconds and then return them to the here and now....

There was nothing glorious about Lincoln's war and there was nothing glorious about fightin or dieing in it...

Maybe this is a tough pill to contimplate beause it has been so thouroughly sanitized thru revisons and rewrites...

Slavery would be long over with either way and ther USA or the USA and the CSA woyuld be better off today had it not been fought...

That is my opinion...

And no, it is not an unfair argument to say some thing like, "Hey, you didn't grow up in the South"... Nothin' unfair about it... I grew up in Virginia, which though the most northern o0f the CSA states is very much a Southern state, both in its history and it's culture...

Si when I talk about this I don't mean it to be a testimonial er nuthin' but stuff I have observed in my life... Not much different than sharing guitar tabs fir a song... Don't make me better 'er worse... Has nuthin' to do with that kind of stuff... Just gives me a different perspective on some things, perhaps...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:00 PM

Who said it was fought over slavery? Lincoln said if he could maintain the union without freeing one slave, then he would. He had the vision to see what your country could be, if you stuck together.

It was fought over the union. wasn't it? And that's what the war decided.

surely the best way to honour those who gave their lives is to make the union work.

Bobert with all the great achievements of your country, I can't see how you could wish the union not in place.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:52 PM

Bobert, ole buddy, you have got to be kiddin'! Much as I like you, you are way off the deep end here. And the first sign of intellectual weakness in an argument is when someone says "you don't live here, so you can't understand.....".

While it is true that this war was caused by other issues, such as states rights, etc, these were among the issues. Slavery was full a part of this equation, if not one of the leading causes.

To suggest that if Lincoln had just left it alone, slavery would have disappeared is the most ludicrous thing I have heard. Shall we apply that same logic to the Nazi's? Or any of the great ills? The by product of any revolution is that mistakes, such as Jim Crow, will happen as the pendulum swings between radical positions.

Another inaccuracy in your oversimplistic "if slavery were the issue, then there wouldn't have been slaves in Washington .... " argument. First off, there was a huge seccessionist movement in DC. It does, after all sit on the edge of the South. There were anti Lincoln agitators all through the city. It was very much a divided town. Your assertion is gratuitous and can just as gratuitously be denied.

Greatness happens in spite of human failings. Among us mere mortals, it is those who rise above and take the risk for mankind that results in a better place that are remembered. Lincoln fits this on all levels. And his Gettysburg Address is one of mankinds most important speeches.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM

Ya' got that right, Bruce...

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:12 PM

As long as governments can keep people hating each other, then those people will seldom look around and see who's really causing them the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 05:57 PM

Well, Bruce, you'd prolly have to live in the South to understand the way that there are still large number to white folks who continue to blame black folks fir their own failings... Let's face it, the South took a real beatin', especially when Sherman puit the final psycological nail in it's coffin by burnin' as much of the South as he could...

Then there was the bitter "occuaption" (reconsteruction, ha...) and when the Union troops left there was so much hatred that got tarnsferred onto the blacks...

And, Ron, do you think slavery would have continued past WW I, if that long??? I don't... But Jim Crow was still going strong well into the 50's and it wasn't until Brown V. Topeka Bord of Education in '54 and the '65 Civil Right Act where ol' Jim styarted to fade...

Hey, I'm not sayin' that slavery was right because it was as immoral as anything I can think of but Jim Crow was just a half a step behind it and some cases, worse...

As fir Ft. Sumpter??? Kinda reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin situation.... Have you been to Charleston, S.C., Kendall, ol' buddy, and been to the Battery.... Well, from the battery you can barely see Ft Sumpter, it's so far off... Now when you think of the artillery of 1861 you would have to have more luck than yer hunter in yer huntin' story just to hit the island, let alone hurt anyone...

But, Ft. Sumpter is like a side bar here...

The real issue is, sadly, about politics and Lincoln didn't understand the Southern culture and didn't make the effort to defuse a bad situation....

And, please, folks, no more arguin' that this war was fought over slavery... If it were then there wouldn't have been slaves in Washington, D.C. when the war broke out, would there???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:31 PM

Bobert old buddy, that was a rhetorical question, we all know who fired the first shot of the war. What you said reminds me of the one about the little boy who came home with a black eye. Dad says "How did you get that black eye"? boy says, "It all started when he hit me back."

Seriously, much of it WAS politics. The south had a huge advantage in their slave labor, but, the way I see it, both sides made a huge mistake. The south believed that Lincoln would never be elected. They were dead wrong. The north believed that the south would not leave the union. They were dead wrong. As a result, 600,000 were dead dead.And we still look to politicians for guidance.
..."When will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn...

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:30 PM

"at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861 the Confederates began the first battle of the Civil War"

Beauregard following the orders of Davis.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:24 PM

Who fired on Fort Sumpter?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 03:47 PM

"There are areas in the South even today where there is so much bottled up hatred of "Yankees" by white folks that they tend to continue to harass and hurt their black neighbors..."

So, you understand then why when Bush was mad at Al Queda he invaded Iraq. Sorry Bobert, but that just don't make sense.

Incidentally, slavery was an 'issue' in the US (then British or French colonies) since the early 1600s. The Civil War started in 1861. So, slavery lasted 'officially' for about 240 years. So, are you saying it should have been allowed to continue?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 02:24 PM

Bobert--

So how long should blacks have had to wait before slavery ended? As it did with the end of the war ---yes, I know share-cropping, KKK etc. was not wonderful--but would continued slavery have been better?)

Do you honestly think that if slavery had died a "natural death" there would have been no lynchings of blacks and no Jim Crow laws. And how long before this "natural death?

As I said, slavery was the curse of the birth of the US. After the 3/5 rule was accepted--and without it, many southern states would not have signed the Constitution--the eventual clash was unavoidable. The southern cotton economy made it worse--by making both many in the south (and indirectly many in the north) very prosperous--at the cost of an entirely slave-based economy