 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Party of Lincoln
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM I wasn't making a personal attack, ollaimh - I assumed that not using capital letters was merely an affectation. My impression is that that is generally the case with people online who just keep it all in lower case. I was wrong this time - sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Nov 10 - 06:20 PM No, I didn't say that at all, ollaimh... If you are going to argue with me, fine... Argue with things I have said and not things you wished I had said... I'm not an eye for an eye kinda guy, btw... Just leaves two people blinded... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 23 Nov 10 - 02:35 PM lonesome is publishing american revisionist pablum lionizing a war criminal and genocidal monster. lee signed prders killing black prisioners. as for boberts idiotic notion that because there were other murders then lees murderts were aok. thats called two wrtings make a right. but we have proof of lees involvement. all others who murdered should be equally recognized as the criminals they are. and mcgrath shut up with you ignorant personal attacks. i realize you are so low as to think you are holy because you can type better than others. if that's all you have to fiier get some education, and stop being so ignorant in public. many people suffer major disabilites and should not be excluded because they affect typing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 14 Nov 10 - 05:02 PM Most likely you are right Greg F. Alas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 14 Nov 10 - 02:12 PM Except for the fact that the Republican Party of the 1860's was nothing like- in temperment, platform or tactics- the current party, and Abe would throw up if he saw what had become of it, that is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM The Party of Lincoln can now be called The Greedy Old Party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Lonesome EJ Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM I have a very hard time reading ollaimh's posts, but I have to correct one item I have excised from one of them. He says regarding Lee "he was an average profession general on the world scale." This is absolutely not true. Lee's battles, and most paricularly Chancellorsville, are still studied in military colleges world-wide. At Chancellorsville, Lee was confronted with a Union army of over 100,000 men, the bulk of which had taken a position to the rear of his army. A large group also simultaneously confronted him at Fredricksburg. An "average general" would have made the safe decision and retreated to defensive positions between the larger army and his capitol. Instead, and in defiance of standard tactical procedure, Lee divided his army, leaving a skeleton force in Fredricksburg to march, demonstrate, and keep the union force there from moving. He then marched the remainder of his army west to confront Hooker at Chancellorsville. Still outnumbered 2 to 1 by Hooker's forces, he divided his forces yet again to launch a surprise flank attack by having Jackson's men march south and west. The flank attack rolled up the Union line and threw the entire northern army around Chancellosville into panic. It was only the substantially lower number of men at Lee's command and the accidental death of Jackson that kept Hooker's army from total destruction. Olliamh implies that Lee was a tactical success, but not a strategic one. As I have said, the grand strategy of the Confederacy was to inflict defeat on the Union until the Union decided the sacrifice was not worth the goal. A complete and devastating defeat of the Army of the Potomac would also have accomplished this, and Lee strove for this in nearly every major battle, but had not the forces at his command. With anyone but Lincoln, this strategy might likely have worked. When this was realized, the strategy became wait out Lincoln and hope his unpopularity would lead to his defeat in 1864. No, Lee is a consistent example of how a force with smaller overall numbers can be victorious by bringing a maximum of its power to bear at the crux of the battle. This is not a view of the "lost cause" apologists for the CSA. It is a recognized fact at West Point and other places where such things are studied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:54 AM My first pistol was a cap and ball Colt Shoot fast as lightnin' but loaded a might slow Loaded a might slow I soon found out It'll get you into trouble But won't get you out... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM ... the Henry repeating rifle. Lincoln actually fired the weapon at the White House... Actually, no. You're thinking of the Spencer repeating rifle & close to 200,000 were purchased during the war, in both carbine and infantry rifle models. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 10 - 07:52 AM Thank you, Amos... The Post has some stuff coming out, as well... Oughtta be some interesting stuff.. I'll check out yer Times stuff later when I have more reading time... B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 13 Nov 10 - 02:49 AM That is probably very representative of the southern slaveholders' attitudes. As I stated above many/most of them are descended from English aristocracy and it was this attitude of "I know best what's good for you." They didn't just believe their slaves were a race apart but perhaps a separate specie. Apalling. Fascinating. I had opprotunity to read some of Lincoln's writings first hand at the Huntington Museum in Southern California quite a number of years ago. We are fortunate that he was such an avid and affable correspondent. Unfortunately .jpeg does not do the documents justice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 13 Nov 10 - 12:08 AM Abraham Lincoln correspondence from 1833 on. Part of the collection at the Library of Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:58 PM Bobert: THe New York Times is running a series of revisitations to the headline pages of the years prior to the war. Interesting stuff. Here's one of the entries. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:07 PM Not really, Slag... Other than 20 years stuck in the mountains of Wes Ginny I am a Virginian... So, being so, I would have voted for the "Constitutional Union" presidential candidate, John Bell, in 1860 with the rest of my fellow Virginians... BTW, the "Constitutional Union" Party carried not only Virginia, but also Kentucky and Tennessee... But even with the 20/20 hindsight how many folks have ever considered states being able to say "See ya'"... Well, I've advocated that going back years here in Mudville and still feel that way... Folks think they don't want to be part of this deal then don't let the door hit ya'll on the way out... Just my philosophy... Plus, the folks who say they want out are the folks who are doin' best on the federal dole... The northwest and the west coast (commie territory) have been carryin' the load for the crybabies... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:24 PM Yes Bobert, that's my original point. The what if's are endless and 20-20 hindsight makes us look like we know wherein we speak. What a luxury. If, somehow you could go back in time, you'd probably learn that no one is going to listen to you. You would be forced to take sides or become a hated and hunted pariah, especially if you were able bodied. Just think if the North had wholly invested in the Henry repeating rifle. Lincoln actually fired the weapon at the White House but wasn't sold on it, why? It certainly would have shortened the war. So many if's: so little foresight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:49 AM Yeah, Greg... In essence, it did begin in the 1950s... Just escalated in Charleston and escalated big time at 1st Manassas... I still think that Lincoln and Davis could have worked things out even after Manassas but by then it would have been very difficult... Lincoln probably would have had had to accept succession which would have prolly worked out a lot better in the long run for everyone... (But, Boberdz... That means you support slavery...) Bogus argument entirely... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:27 AM Actually, Bobert, the Civil War began with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) in 1798 and 1799 (proponents of the discredited "Compact Theory" of the Federal Government), the Missouri Compromise in 1830 and the South Carolina 1832 Ordinance of Nullification (yup, good ol' South Carolina again). Only got worse with the Compromise of 1850 & the Dredd Scott decision. The Civil War had been going on for more than half a century before the shooting war started in Kansas in 1854. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:37 PM Yeah, oll-ie, I'd love to see a real discussion on the war rather than the pablum that has been peddled... I mean, right down to revisiting the late 50's right up to Sumpter in '61... Seems that discussion never quite happens and its a shame it doesn't because seems that there is so much pent up hatred in the South that maybe an airin' of real history would be a good thing for everyone... BTW, if you can make it to DC in the next couple months the exhibit at the National Achieves I'm sure will be fascinating... I hope to make it myself... BTW, Lee ain't this Charles Manson character... Reagan??? Maybe... Lee, like a lot of West Pointers, just got caught up in some funky shit... I don't blame the grunts for the failure of politicians... Lee was just a grunt with more brass to carry around... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM and of course the party of lincoln has wrought war crimes in many places. the reagan adminstration and many religious right sponsored rios mont in guatemala. mont massacred a quarter of a million mayan peasants because they were protesting that they wanted land.. must be communists eh? these were the very people dispossed of their land by invasion and kept in that state by american arms over the last century. its really a shame there is no international war crimes tribunal that has teeth. the gautemalian massacres are among the worst examples of genocidal war crimes in history but most americans care not. reagan was strong!! well so was hitler. carter began turning away from that kind of foreigh abuse and people saw it as weakness. ideas have currency over generations. if you are raised to think lee was a hero and a gentleman you would find nothing wrong with some mass murders "of the right people". untill americans self examine about their history of war crimes they will never purge themselves of them and never put a stop to them. most american have no idea that they over threw the democratically elected government of iran after the second world war. the insatlled the shah because mozadegh was going to nationalize the oil companies--like this was stoppable? the shah proceed to nationalize them and subject iran to decades of torture and criminal governmant. so now america reaps the result of that. again ideas have currency over time. if you thought a criminal like lee was a gentileman than maybe its ok to"break a few eggs to make an ommelet". then to fight the iranian revolution rumsfeld in the reagan adminstration sold sadam hussein the componenets for making his poison gas. ideas have currency. but these approaches make millineal enemies. the vistors forget in a week what they did, but the victums never forget-- a century from now there will be attacks on america from iraqi's and iranians. back to pois mont i noticed his main supporteer pat robertson was recently calling for the assination of chavez of venezula. and this is a christian? well he's a christian like robert e lee and ronald reagan. they think murder is ok as long as you kill the right people. well untill you cleanse these criminal ideas then there will be no real democracy in america. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:35 PM what a joke that the southerners fought for self determination. only if they could exclude up to forty percent of the population, in south carolina for example. they fought for white determination. and jim crow laws showed they didn;t change and ps to those who seek to attacj because of typing well the ignorant and uneducated bigots of all stripes prefer to attack on personal grounds rather than on issues. i have a couple of major disabilities, and i bet i type better in english than any of you in french |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 10 Nov 10 - 10:01 PM Geeze, I guess that Lee was the only person that murdered anyone during the unCivil War??? I mean, lets gets real here...People killed each other for no other reason than they were trying not to get killed themselves... Yeah, I've heard and read (unsubstantiated) claims that Lee ordered that black union POWs be executed... There's a major "Civil War" exhibit going on at the US Achieves in Washington, D.C. right now with thousands of letters and commands and orders on display and I'd invite anyone to come up with any proof that Lee had any policy of executing black union POW troops... But nevermind that little sidebar for now... Yeah, I agree with most of what GUEST,ollainmh has said... But like I have said many times, I would have told ol' Jefferson Davis to not let the door hit him on the way out... Ya'll want out??? Fine... Bye... Heck, if about 13 Southern States wanted out today I'd say the same thing... They are too expensive... Year after year the nation ends up subsidizing these folks... I mean, the South gets back more federal $$$$ then it pays in... Ya'll want out??? Bye... (But, Boberdz... You live in the South...) Yeah, I do... Goina' have to work out a few details... But back to this Lee order to execute black union pows... Hey, I have never seen any proof that occured... Just accusations... Lee being a great general??? Not really... Better teacher at V.M.I.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:34 PM CAPITAL LETTERS PLEASE!!! STOP MUMBLING. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM lee had the opportunity to free john brown at harpers ferry!! too bad he didn't the idea that southern seccession was in any way democratic is central to the delusional thinking of the southern right. in south carolina forty per cent of the male population didn't have the vote. eighty per cent over all. these were democrats like the spartans were democrats. most of the south had at least a quarter of the population unable to vote. the south was a oligarchy not a democracy, and had no legitimacy to secceed untill it held referumdums on universal sufferage, and that was established international law even then, but the law now . as got grants actions. i've read his letters about the prisoner exchange and those to the southern generals on the topic and he stated forth rightly that the failure to respect the lws of war resulted in no more prisoner exchange. to those who smuggy go for the arguements that the seccession was for states rights or other issues before slavery. all you are saying is you approve that some local antidemocratic landownung cluque should have their rights protected before one of the greatest genocidal systems in history id dealt with. i surprised you aren;t waiting now for slavery to return as the south still needs rural street lights and lanes improved first. then we will get to the great historical racism amnd genpocide that they seems to have to trouble with. and what did they do with the states rights? jim crow. the reintroduction of slavery for many of the poor blacks and certainly for all poor blacks who apoke out about even the smallest injustice amd tthe lack of a vote untill the sizties. untill the south and the right look at themselves critically american democracy is threatened. america has been a democratic beakon for the world, but letting it slit away into the hands of the ingorant uneducated apologists for southern cruelty is a tragedy of historical proportions. finally lee was a good manouverer, but unable to deal with either mead or grant who didn't respond and just sat tight and fought. his style of war farte had disappeared in the napoleonic era but he was lucky to be fighting northen armies that were not professionaly trained untill late in the war. his great opportunity at gettysburg was picketts and pettigrews charge, a frontal assault on an entrenched position, long after sharpburg showed that the firepower of the then modern armies could not be over come by fromtal assault without hugh numbers or other major advantages. he was an average profession general on the world scale. and he personally signed death warrants for black union prisoners. here is the nub of the problem of the revisionists who defend him and the csa. killing people unjustly is never ok, its murder!! murderers are the cruelest people alive!!! and those who justify them are aiding and abetting criminals. if any union general did this they'd scream, but then really what the revisionists are saying is black deaths do not count. again untill america leaves these delusionl ideas behind democracy is threatened, and what a tragedy for the land of liberty |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:34 AM my take on several vexed question contained in the thread http://www.bigalwhittle.co.uk/id44.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:32 PM Hey, give those books I mentioned a try, Bobert. Ya ain't gotta "go back to college" - ain't no quizzes or tests, I promise, and you might actually enjoy 'em!! Be well, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:08 PM BTW, I'm not familiar with the Lincoln scholarship, Greg... But then again, I don't want to go back to college... Had 'nuff... 8 years and two lousy degrees is plenty fir this ol' lexdexic hillbilly... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM I dumped the revisionists story on college, Greg, when I had the distinct pleasure of taking both semesters of History of the South which was the only class that the late Dr. Rogers, the head of VCU's history department, taught... We spent a good month on 1860 and 1861 alone... Lots of interesting view points were brought up not only by Dr, Rogers but other students as well... BTW, 2 semesters of American History were a prerequisite... I have read a coupe books on Lincoln, one entitled "Lincoln" (author escapes me) but if I still own those books they are still packed away in book boxes that never got opened after the last move... Actually, McG, there is something we can do about the unCivil War now and that is learn from it... There are a lot of similarities between what was goin' on in the 1850s up until the firing on Fort Sumpter and what's goin' on now with thr differences between the progressive movement and the Tea Partiers... Different ways of thinkin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:07 PM I think that you are actually arguing with their great granddaddies... If only that was the case! Unfortunately, a lot of this misinformation and myth is very much alive and well in the current generations- hence the white supremecist & Neo-Confederate movements, among others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:33 PM Please please, let's have capital letters where capital letters should be. Stop mumbling!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Lonesome EJ Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM "the revisionist history that lee was a "gentlerman" is easily refuted. this is not hiden or arcane knowledge. even the pbs documentary on the civil war noted that grant ceased prospner exchange when the south was returning no black soldiers." -Olaimh That's what I was responding to, Greg. No argument about the execution of captured slaves, either. As I indicated, there is enough evidence of misdeed without implying that Grant was some shocked idealist who refused to trade prisoners due to racism. He was the ultimate pragmatist, in my opinion, and did what he thought he needed to do to bring the war to a swift conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:10 PM Pity about the Civil War, but there's nothing to do about it now. Pity about the previous Civil War back in 1776 too. The thing to do is, learn from the times things go wrong. At least the British learned enough to avoid making the same mistake when it came to Canada and Australia... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:08 PM Oh, Greg, so Lincoln was this saint and Davis was the devil. Don't be an ass, Bobert, this is unworthy of you.( I hope ) A totally biased viewpoint where one side is the bad side and the other the good side As above. I never so stated or even implied any such. And you never answered my question about recent Lincoln scholarship versus the utter crap we were BOTH taught in school in the 1950's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM The prisoner exchange program during the Civil War was not terminated because the South refused to trade black prisoners. Where did this come from? No one maintained that it did. The Confederacy did not TAKE Black prisoners as per the rules of war; they were summarily executed, or enslaved. The Confederacy did not recognize their military status. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:58 PM Oh, Greg, so Lincoln was this saint and Davis was the devil... Okay, I see where you are coming from... A totally biased viewpoint where one side is the bad side and the other the good side... Lincoln did indeed say all the things the the Northern Repubs wanted to hear... And in the Charleston harbor he did all the things that were overtly antagonistic and not helpful if there was going to be a way to not end up at war... I don't think those points are all that debatable... Of course, American history being what it is, to the victors go the spoils of sanitazation and revision... I think when we discuss the unCivil War in terms of bad guys and good guys we aren't lookin' at much more than the revised edition... I mean, heck yeah the Southern states that were hanging onto slavery were wrong... So were folks in Washington, D.C. where there were over 4000 slaves at the beginning of the war... But there was shortages of wrongness in the mid 1800's... Northerners didn't get the Southern culture and vice versa... I mean, different ways of livin' cross the Mason Dixon line not all that different between today's progressives and the Tea Party folks... My own feelin's beyond my observations that we had two guilty parties is that if we could do a "reset" then alot more folks would have voted for John Bell in 1860 and avoided the entire mess... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:44 PM >>If folks can't understand accept the facts of situations, they're never going to reach a resolution. << You think that you will change their minds by arguing with them. I think that you are actually arguing with their great granddaddies and the stars and bars on the back of their trucks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Lonesome EJ Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM The prisoner exchange program during the Civil War was not terminated because the South refused to trade black prisoners. It was terminated because the strategy under Grant was to dent ANY resupply to the Confederacy, because attrition naturally favors the army with the greatest supply of men and material. For this, Grant was willing to let his men die in wretched circumstances in places like Andersonville, where treatment grew even worse after the exchanges ended. To characterize this this as the result of Southern obstinacy and hatred for black prisoners does not describe the situation and smacks of as much revisionism as does the concept that the war was fought over state's rights and had nothing to do with slavery. Lee was no angel, but he was certainly a better general than anyone the Union could muster to oppose him. He was also a man who opposed secession, but could not bear to see his state leave the Union and be invaded without taking up arms to defend it. He was a great battlefield leader, but was consumed by the need to break the Army of the Potomac and force a ceasefire. Always lacking the forces to capitalize on victories, such as those at Manassas, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville, Lee simply lacked the power to defeat AND pursue and crush a beaten army. His ill-chosen frontal attack at Gettysburg was the product of this frustration and need. Slavery taints the action of all of those who fought for the South, but it does not make them evil or excessively cruel. And we shouldn't need that sort of justification to say that the South was essentially and basically wrong in its actions, and that, thanks largely to the obstinacy and vision of Lincoln, it was rightly defeated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM Not re-fighting the war, Jack. Just trying to counter myth, bullshit & fairytale as they crop up from time to time. If folks can't understand accept the facts of situations, they're never going to reach a resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM I am an immigrant from Canada so I don't really know all the feelings involved. But I can say one thing for sure. The war is over. Its time to stop fighting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:43 AM By the way, Bobert - just curious - have you read any recent Lincoln scholarship?- Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, Eric Foner's (ed) Our Lincoln or David Herbert Donald's Lincoln for instance? Might be worth your while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM as for lincoln he was no abolitionist nor democratic fire brand. but the enemy was so vile he was forced to fight. at every turn the southern leadership broke every code of human decency right untill they were destroyed. unfortunately the bush years were a sort of revenge of the confederacy. once forced to fight such evil forces lincoln did see it through to the end. many northerners were prepared to come to some agreement. the north didn't put more than ten to twenty per cent of its resources into the war untill the very end. thats what kept the south alive so long. many northerners didn't want to pay a dime for the war so lincoln had to conduct war with inadequate resources. i notice as well that american historians ignore wilkes-booths involvement with the british army intelligence. he spent most of the war years in toronto canada supported by the british army. the british were horrofied that after victory lincoln might take his 600,000 veteren soldiers and invade canada. many british historians speculate that the british funded the assination of lincoln, but americans seem to ignor this possibility because they entered a period of agreement with the british empire to keep other europeans powers out of the new world while the british investors had free reign protected by american gun boats all over the americas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:30 AM the revisionist history that lee was a "gentlerman" is easily refuted. this is not hiden or arcane knowledge. even the pbs documentary on the civil war noted that grant ceased prospner exchange when the south was returning no black soldiers. it really deosn't matter it happened at the end of the war--its a racist genocidal war cri,e. lee himself refused to have a cadet core at the college he headed for decades after the war as he felt great guilt for the unecessary suffering he caoused and even admited the killing of blak soldiers was wrong. the lionization of lee is part of the whoole lets pretend history americans --especially southerners-- are devoted to. its seems people down there would rather have fake heros than know the truth. it really shows how little people cared because the prisoners of war were black. then look at the terrible conditions of jim crow. children as young as eight imprisined for life in farms and worked to death. the prison farms usually housed over two hundred thousand black americans who mostly never got release. there was a deqth rate of over fifty per cent, and in some years fifty percent each year. thios is dammning. devotion to a flag of racist cruelty and men who perpetrated such crimes shows how deeply engrained fascism is in america. i don't expect it to change but looking the truth in the face is the first step. this irrational view of your own history is the first step in creating a populace that will accept massive violation of civil and human rights. funny the bush adminstration is getting off scott free for war crimes and crimes against the american democracy, and the protest movement isn't about that. its a yea party selling the corporate line one more time. the inability to recognize your own history leads directly to the inability to recognize the lies of anti democratic politicians who are destroying the americann democt=racy and ecomomy right now |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:28 AM That may be A deal, Bobert, but it sure ain't real. Lincoln didn't use "firey" rhetoric in the campaign. You want "firery", read the Richmond Examiner, the Charleston Mercury, etc. & the speeches of Calhoun, Stephens, et. al. The South's vote in the election of 1860 & the reaction to Lincoln's election were based on wilfull misrepresentations of his positions, lies and a river of shit campaign very similar to the one recently waged against Obama. The Southern population was accordingly just about as rational in 1860/61 as the Birthers, TeaBaggers, and the "Get Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" bunch. Once the United States had been attacked by military force, there weren't a lot of options upen to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:01 AM Here's the real deal here, Greg... Lincoln didn't have to use such firey rhetoric in the campaign... He was going to be elected no matter because the Northern Repubs had the numbers... Lincoln could have shown a little more grace in his speeches... But that's just the tip of the iceberg... The unCivil War didn't begin until well after Lincoln had been sworn in and he allowed himself to get sucked into a game of brinksmanship in Charleston... That was his choice... I guess he just didn't understand just how pissed off the secessionists were... His bad... Again, I am not excusing anything that the secessionists did but pointing out that that clusterfuck pchapter of American history took more than one person putting pride above intellect... Kinda like the Iraq war, come to think of it... I mean, I think it can be argued that there were opportunities on both side to "step back" after 1st Mananas and again neither side was operating with intellect... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:33 AM ... but you can't naysay the bravery and dedication of those who fought. Never did, Slag, nor would I attempt to do so. No one, in my book [i.e. Lincoln], that had the power to perhaps change the events that led to the unCivil war.. A it too simplistic, Bobert. You're implying that Lincoln had some sort of magical/ mystical powers. He had no more chance of stopping the run-away freight train that had been leading up to Civil War for decades than Obama has of turning around in 18 months the fallout from 30 years or Republican mismanagement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:34 AM Tredegar Iron Works was right there on the James River where the rapids are and as the North quickly found out after the "6 day battles" that Richmond was not going to be easy to take because of the swamps to the north and to the east... BTW, alot of the artillery that was forged there was done using Union prisoners who were housed on Bell Island which was/is located in the middle of the river right there where Tredegar is... I would agree that we need more people with spine right now, Capt'n, but we'll have to agree to disagree on Lincoln as this great man... No one, in my book, that had the power to perhaps change the events that led to the unCivil war and didn't gets the "great" designation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Lonesome EJ Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:21 AM Kendall said Another major mistake on the part of the South, when the war broke out the South had ONE iron foundry,Tredegar Iron works and that was in Richmond, just a few miles from the Union line. Fact was the Army of Northern Virginia captured so much munition in the first two years of the war it didn't need a huge arms works to continue the fight. What it needed was soldiers and food for them. Time and again Lee defeated his opponent with half the men the Union mustered. But the attrition was horrific, and even losing battle after battle, the North could afford the losses of men and material. Once Lincoln put Grant in charge, and Grant simply refused to disengage, Lee was forced to withdraw toward his capitol and finally fight a defensive struggle around it. The only hope the South had was the unpopularity of the war in Northern eyes, and when McClellan lost the election to Lincoln in 1864, the struggle was effectively over. Lincoln was a great man and a fine president, as was Theodore Roosevelt. Lincoln stood for the equality of the races and the ideals of the Republic, and Roosevelt for right of the country to govern Big Business rather than vice-versa. We need such men now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:54 PM I know I'll probably get a bit of flack for this but shouldn't the congratulating the Black elected officials and the arguing for the the side of the South be kept separate. I get a bad taste in my mouth when I think about the direction of this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM Hey, I could be wrong. I think I remember being wrong, once! I was thinking of Colonel Allensworth (actually he never rose above the rank of "private" in the Union Army) but I rechecked the story and the community he established was more or less on his own dime. But I do know that Union soldiers, including some black Union soldiers, were paid with land, much of it in the west. And, unfortunately, much of it was Indian land. As I mentioned above, I am only drawing on memory and you all probably know how that goes, and goes, and goes! I remeber a description of a Confederate charge against a Union line. The writer described the soldiers as looking like scarecrows and ghosts. Half of them didn't hold a weapon. Some had little in the way of clothing. They were gaunt and hollow-eyed and they all knew they were about to die. It broke the writer's heart to do what he did, to keep pulling the trigger and reloading and at the same time he hated them for not surrendering when every evidence shouted "Surrender!". It literally broke the South when Lee did surrender. You can say what you want about the imperfectness of all concerned but you can't naysay the bravery and dedication of those who fought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:30 PM Greg F., Try again for what? I said, specifically, right in my post, that the Homestead Act was open to European-Americans. I never at any time said anything about any program being specific to African-Americans. I would be happy to "try again" if you wish, but what is it for which you wish me to try? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:08 PM Nah, Greg... I'm not condoning anything that the South did, nor am I condoning anything the North did... War is not all that "honorable"... I do not glorify one minute of this war... Not from the arrogance of the Northern Republicans and Lincoln's speeches that were antagonistic, not the Buchannon's decision to fortify Sumpter which was equally arrogant, not South Carolina succeeding from the Union, not South Carolina firin' on Sumpter... None of it... It was going to be a fuy7cked up mess and that is what it was... Nuthin' more and nuthin' less... I mean, there ain't nuthin' romantic about war in general and this one could and should have not been allowed to go forward... It was stupidity on both sides, and arrogance and people not talking with other people and it brought about the worst of human behavior on both sides... I don't apologize for anything that happened... I think Sherman burning Southern cities was wrong... I think that the North using blacks at the Battle of the Crater was wrong... I think that Andersonville was inhumane and as wrong a wrong could be... I am not a Southern apologist here... There's enough blame to go around on both side of the Mason-Dixon line to fill a million volumes... Everyone who had some level of power messed up... Everyone lined up down party lines... No one stepped up... Lincoln didn't... Davis didn't... It was insanity at its absolute worst... ...and a completely needless war... I mean, slavery was being outlawed all over the world in the mid 1800s and Southerners would have outlawed it as well had the war not happened... Yeah, it might have taken another 20 years but would have saved the nation, blacks and whites, so much agony... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM Sorry, Kent, inadmissible - the Homestead Act was open to all, including immigrants and resident foreigners, not a program targeted to aid freed Slaves or Blacks, to whit, from your second URL: "The Homestead Act went into effect on Jan. 1, 1863, and allowed anyone over the age of 21, or the head of any household, to own farmland... as long as they were legal U.S. citizens or planned on becoming one after legally entering the country. Try again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:37 PM Its all precious. It really is, a couple of black Tea Partiers, big whoop! At last at last Republicans are no longer racist. A whopping .8% of the caucus is African American! Lincoln must be proud! >>So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. <<< or is he turning in his grave?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM Greg F., You asked for examples of African-Americans being given land in the North after the War. Here are a couple of sources regarding the Homestead Act, through which many African-Americans (and European-Americans) obtained land. A good portion of this land was in the North. http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/stories/0504_0100.html http://www.ehow.com/facts_6751734_homestead-act-african-americans.html Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM it's easy to vilify and try to make demons outta everyone who fought on the Southern side...By the time of Petersburg the Southern army was really down to the dregs... the Southern army would have killed any Union troop regardless of color... You're disappointing me, Bobert- I had always thought better of you. Plenty of atrocities were committed against Blacks long before the Siege of Petersburg. The Confederacy never condoned the massacre of White prisoners, as they did Black ones. Nobody here, I think, myself included, is trying to "vilify everyone who fought for the South"- only to present the facts of what actually went on without recourse to subsequent "Lost Cause", "Redemptionist" and Neo-Confederate mythology, spin and invention. On the other hand, you seem to be coming dangerously close to whitewashing and making excuses for things for which there really is no excuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:23 PM Whole communities of black folks were given government lands where they could form their own communities and not just in the south. Slag, Blacks *given* lands in the North after the civil War? No, I don't think so. If you can cite examples, please do so. As far as the lands Blacks received in the South, they remained in possession only until the KKK and the "Redemptionists" drove them off, killing quite a few into the bargain. Look up the Congressional Hearings on the Klan & its activities in 1868, & later. You're ignoring the fact that as soon as The War Between The States was over, the South launched The War Against The Blacks wch was in many ways more vicious than the prior conflict and wch lasted for just about 100 years. And the "peace" is an uneasy one- Occasional skirmishes still break out today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:34 AM I looked it up. MacGrath, you are right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:45 AM I'm not clear what Jack meant there, apart from the obvious thing that the two words are different words. "I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race" - that's about as clear and unambiguous statement of "white supremacy" as I can imagine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:49 PM Well, glad that is cleared up... Robert E. Lee, from all I have read about him and his life, seemed to be a decent family man who found himself in a bad situation... And I'm not sure it was policy either other than an unwritten policy... By the time of Petersburg the Southern army was really down to the dregs in terms of troops and they were some really pissed off people... I mean, not all that smart either... Some of the tactics they used would have, in better times, had Thomas Jackson laughing on the floor... But sadly, by then there was an intense hatred that had set in... More than any kind of hatred that they thought they felt leading up to Sumpter... These were desperate times and eons beyond their successful "6 day battle" at Richmond some 3 1/2 years earlier which by then were distant memories... I mean, it's easy to vilify and try to make demons outta everyone who fought on the Southern side but, hey, it was a fucked up war with lots of very bad and evil things happening on both sides... There was nothin' "civil" about it... Also, toward the end of the war, with rations gone, I'm sure that what was left of the Southern army would have killed any Union troop regardless of color over capturing him... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:42 PM I guess I don't see superior and supreme as the same word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:36 PM Bobert, grab a calendar and mark this day. I am in complete agreement with your 11 AM posting! If we learned anything from the Civil War (wasn't it Lincoln himself that remarked that there was nothing civil about it?) and WWI that it is a mistake to rub a defeated enemies nose in their loss and punish the entire population for the sins of a few. Our efforts with Japan have paid enormous benefits for both countries and continue to do so. To a lesser degree the same for Germany and Italy. And yes I have heard those theories to the contrary and those to the effect that the US was secretly with them and on and on. The factual and self-evident picture is the socio-economic success of each and the better world relations. I could go on... Yes GregF, that was the situation. The war left the fam pretty destitute. The former slaves had nowhere to go so they cast their lot with my great grandfolks. That's not to say they had no choice now. Whole communities of black folks were given government lands where they could form their own communities and not just in the south. They were in it together. I'm not seeking to justify anything. I don't have to. This is just what my people did to survive and those with them. How poor folks were after the war is almost unimaginable in this day and age. My Grandfather, in 1901 could make 50 cents a day picking cotton and that was pretty good money. My Dad recalled sitting on a cotton sack being dragged down the furrows as his Mom picked cotton and when he was old enough he worked too. All his brothers and sisters did the same. Then came the Depression. ollaimh, a lot of folks were executed, hung, shot and badly mistreated: BOTH SIDES! Such is the nature of war and that is a real big and good reason to avoid it. So what's your point? Is that it is OK to display the seething hatred inside if you direct it at these people who, in a large sense, were victims of their times? I'm not saying they didn't contribute to the chaos or even promote it. Maybe some of them were filled with an evil hatred and the war gave them the opportunity to express their hatreds in a very violent way. Every man or woman involved were real people with hopes and dreams, plans for a future, songs unsung. They were diverted from their pursuit of happiness by events larger than they. They didn't all behave the same way, did they? How is it that you know what was in their hearts, whether individually or collectively? Do you know what shaped their minds? Are you God Almighty Himself, that you sit in judgment of these? For some, it is an easy call, I admit. There were some real sadistic psychopaths who enjoyed the killing and spreading of terror. There always is those few. So you argue this against Lee? Cite your evidence. I could claim the same for Sherman who set his face to do what he did. He knew the terror that he caused but he also believed that it was the quickest way to end the greater carnage that would have continued. I would hate to be in the position of either of these men. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't! And for that matter, I both pity and greatly respect Mr. Lincoln. He had a great heart and a great mind and the awful things he had to decide were decisions he knew he would have to live with for the rest of his life. None of these were perfect. Each was doing the best they could with what they had. In most ways, they were ordinary men thrust into extraordinary times and circumstances. I do tend to agree with you, however, concerning Jeff Davis. His actions and words do speak for themselves and there are others too. It's just that rather than condemning these men which is so easy to do, I ask what is it I can learn from them? If their example is negative what can I do to avoid the same choices they made and if positive how can I build on that? Just dwelling on your own hatred does nothing good for anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:12 PM Jack the Sailor, You said "there may have been a small fringe of white supremacists who were anti-slavery. They were rare exceptions". I wish you were right, but in fact it was not a "small fringe" of people who supported white supremacy and who also opposed slavery. Lincoln himself was a white supremacist, and said he had never met anyone who was NOT a white supremacist. Below are Lincoln's own words on the subject, from the Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate. Notice especially the last line. Read that line and then see if you don't find it inspiring that Tim Scott was elected to the U.S. House of Representives, with 66% of the vote(!), from the district that includes Fort Sumpter!!! Mr. Lincoln's Speech (September 18, 1858) LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. 1 While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. 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, 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 forever 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM Do you have a source where Lee or Davis ordered the executions??? No,Bobert, I don't & never said that I did. But just because Marse Robert & Jeff Davis didn't choose to put it down on paper doesn't mean that it didn't happen or wasn't policy, does it?? Plausable Deniability didn't originate with the C.I.A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM From Michael Fellman, The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000): Confederate hatred for black troops spilled over most lethally on the issue of treatment of prisoners of war. In several instances, Confederate troops shot down black troops rather than accept their surrender. In the two most fully recorded cases—at Poison Springs, Arkansas, and Fort Pillow, Tennessee—several hundred blacks were slaughtered after throwing down their arms; many instances of killing of smaller groups and of black retaliation went unrecorded in official reports. As for Lee's army, recent scholarship has described the massacre of black troops attempting to surrender at the battle of the Crater, on the Petersburg front on July 30, 1864, in which many Confederate soldiers participated. As North Carolina major Matthew Love described the scene in a letter to his mother, his regiment refused to take prisoners and 'such slaughter I have not witnessed upon any battlefield anywhere. Their men were principally negroes and we shot them down until we got near enough and then run them through with the bayonet. … We was not very particular whether we captured or killed them, the only thing we did not like to be pestered burying the heathens.' If General Lee knew of this significant incident, he did not respond to it. (Extract lifted from here.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM Greg, Reread what I said... Do you have a source where Lee or Davis ordered the executions??? I said that there were lots bad things that happened during the war but that Lee and Davis didn't order up the executions... If you can find a source that is credible then I'll correct what I said... But hey, rednecks are rednecks and I can sho nuff see some Southern boys hangin' black folks... Heck, didn't quit after the war neither... Might of fact, the last lynchin' happened right here in the good ol' US of A in the early 60's... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Nov 10 - 03:16 PM r u archie the cockroach? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 06 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM i do have a couple of degrees in history and have seen the documents of jeff davis, robert e lee and andrew jackson ordering the exucution of black union soldierprisoners of war. the fact that americans so commonly ignor the existing smoking guns shows how completely delusional they are in their understanding of themselves and their place in history. these men were war murdering genocidal war criminals and many americans know nothing and don;t want to know. its sad but its also damning about the ability of american militarists to forgive themselves for the worst crimes while cliaming a moral right in the world. to find the documentation can be difficult. american historians routinesly ignor them, however a few are actual historians and can;t make things up the way the propogandists who often masquerade as historians down south do. denying the obvious documented cases of exucution of black union soldier prisoners of war--and on a widespread scale --is the equivalent of nazi revisionism denying the holocoust. the ability to to so shows why americans keep voting for the people who cause their problems and expecting those people to solve the problems they caused |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM I believe at one point in the decades before the wars one abolitionists favoured secession from the Union by the free states. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM most other people, especially outside the US, with no dog in that hunt, just could not follow their logic[sic]. Possibly because it ISN'T logic? And that its based on myth and wishful thinking & self-delusion? No facts need apply. What else could I do? Call their Grandpa's Grandpa a liar? Yup. That would have been a good start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 10 - 11:24 AM But other slave holders had pity on the folks who were snatched from their homes and transported across the sea. Some risked life and limb to teach the slaves to read. Jaysus, Slag- listen to yourself. Didn't stop Kindly Ol' Massa from keeping them as property, like a chair or a hog, did it? What did you expect Grandpa's former slaves - never having been trained to skills other than those of laborers - to do after emancipation? Get jobs teaching college to support themselves? Of course the went with "Ol Massa" to Oklahoma and farmed for wages (or did he share-crop them, perhaps?) to stay in the south "unattatched" and/or unemployed during the post Civil War era risked starvation & death. You been watching Gone With The Wind a bit too often. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 10 - 11:13 AM I said nothing about either the second or the third issue. I addressed only the first. Correct, Kent. And in so doing, you ignored three-quarters of what the Civil War was about. You left out Slavery entirely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM Neither Robert E. Lee nor Jefferson Davis ordered the execution of black union troops.. Sorry, Bobert, but that's a bit disingenuous. You're forgetting Fort Wagner, Fort Pillow, and a host of other cases where Black Union prisoners WERE summarily executed by Confederate troops. It was only after Lincoln made it clear that he would execute Confederate prisoners in retaliation that the practice became less than universal. The Confederacy DID make it official policy that any Black under Union Arms was ipso facto a slave, and thus had no rights whatsoever, & thus no crime to execute a "thing". Which threy often did. Check out that two-legged piece of excrement Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Nov 10 - 11:00 AM Kents When I lived in Alabama, I had a couple of friends from there who explained it all to me. The war was about Northern Aggression. (Who attacked Fort Sumter?) The "Niggers" were the "bad" black people on welfare, not the good, hard working ones. Flying the Confederate Battle flag should in no way offend black people or those who opposed slavery on principle because it was a celebration of a great southern tradition. (That flag was only flown officially for a few years and at best it symbolized the attempt to break up a country which southerners have fought and died for many times since.) I told them that I respected their right to their opinions, but that I didn't share them and that most other people, especially outside the US, with no dog in that hunt, just could not follow their logic.. What else could I do? Call their Grandpa's Grandpa a liar? I have followed the history well enough, I think. The South was not only fighting for slavery in their own territories, they were fighting for the requirement that half the new states created also had it and though there may have been a small fringe of white supremacists who were anti-slavery. They were rare exceptions. I is not fair to say that the two are separate issues. To use your logic. no white supremacists: No slavery No Slavery: No succession No succession: No War |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 06 Nov 10 - 10:05 AM Exactly, McG... Garbage in = garbage out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 10 - 10:02 AM But to learn from it we have to actually look at it as it happened, not as it fits in with how we'd like it to have happened. And how it happened is always messy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:59 AM Yeah, McG... That's one way of looking at it but in the words of Voltaire... ..."those who don't know history tend to repeat it"... Lesson: Yeah, it may be a nightmare but if we learn from it we can prevent here-and-now nightmares... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:56 AM As James Joyce put it: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:11 AM It should also me noted here that the abolitionists movement had been in full swing for a generation when the War Between the States began... I have argued in the past that it was just a mmatter of time and politics before it would have ended... (Of course, people say, "Prove it" which is not at all fair because that is impossible no matter how much one understands the history...) But here's the scenario... The results of the unCivil War were so long lasting that we still fell them today... I wonder if slavery had ended without the war whether or not that would be the case... I mean, when you look at not only the crushing defeat of the South and it's consequences both long term and short term this was beyond crushing, it was devastating to the South... Lets review: 1. The war took out the South's brightest and it's best... People forget that then South prided itself on having a class of very well read and educated people... These folks were the first to enlist as they thought the conflict would be over in a matter of a couple weeks or months... Those losses led to the South having to rebuild without it's best educated... 2. The Reconstruction/Occupation of the South until after the Hayes-Tilden deal in 1876 was like having one kick sand in yer face every day for years... This left Southerners as doubly humiliated... 3. During Reconstruction/Occupation Southern blacks were, thanks to the Union occupation, able to to assume positions of authority in the South which further infuriated the Southerners... 4. After the Union pulled out in '76 there was really no interim control leaving the remaining white Southerners free to extract whatever revenge/retaliation on the freed slaves beginning an 80 year period of Jim Crow terrorism... This in itself proved to be almost as damaging to the well being of the nation as the war itself... Jim Crow wasn't officially dealt with by the "union" until the 1960s, folks, and there are still people alive, me included, who were part of that struggle to try to get Jim Crow in the grave but... 5. ...Jim Crow is more than hatred of blacks... It is also a hatred of federalism and it has been passed down from generation to generation and still very much part of the Southern psyche today... It explains why the Democratic Party, once the party of the South, is thought in many Southern circles to be the enemy for having pushed the Civil Rights Act... I mean, when we look at the effects of the war on our country it is MHO that had the abolitionists movement been not short-circuited by the unCivil War that we, as a nation, would be a lot further down the road today... BTW, I do not understand why so many folks glorify this terrible failure... I mean, it's one thing to understand the history of the war and the various battles, many which were just too many folks being in the wrong place at the wrong time (Antietam) but quite another to romanticize and glorify America's most shameful period... Bad on both sides... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 06 Nov 10 - 03:19 AM Thanks for the facts Kent. I have to admit I am more than a little rusty on my Civil War history. It has been many years since I gave it a study. I also remember reading a couple of books on Lee but I could not tell you the titles today. I do remeber that Lee was a West Point honor graduate. At some point in the conflict between France and Mexico he lead an expeditionary force south of the border. I also recall that the entire nation watched to see what he would do as the war approached. He was considered the most prominent General in the nation and he did not immediately decide for the South. Nothing is ever as cut and dried as we tend to think. Uncle Tom's Cabin gave one picture of slavery in the US that had world wide circulation and was a great shaper of folks' hearts and souls everywhere and the story was largely true. It was related to Stowe by runaway slave girl who's account of events had no reason for embellishment, only that it happened. But other slave holders had pity on the folks who were snatched from their homes and transported across the sea. Some risked life and limb to teach the slaves to read. In some places that was a crime punishable by death. When you understand that you begin to see that opposing slavery or refusing to use slaves could be a high risk proposition for white folks. My maternal grandmother was from Arkansas and Grandfather was from Washington, the state. Mom told me that every so often they'd get into it and refight the Civil War all over. They were born too late to have any but their parents' distant memories of the conflict but it is amazing how feelings had continued to run high over the complex issues. My Great Grand Father was an officer in the Confederate Army, a cavalry man and a slave owner of some wealth, at least at the onset. He did not approve of slavery but there you have it! After the war he moved his family to Pike Co. in Oklahoma Indian Territory and began to farm there. Most of his slaves stayed with him though he had freed them all. This is all from the pen of my Grandfather born in the 1880's and of that time some of the former slaves were still with them helping work the farm. In fact he, my Grandfather, was wetnursed by one of them. From what little remains from his hand I gather they were good to their people and for that I am greatful as it would have otherwise been more of a taint upon my family. On that side of my family the record runs back to before the Revolution and there was always slave ownership, I presume, as a last will and testament from ten generations back leaves slaves (5) to first son. I have no way of knowing how they were treated other than they were slaves. And how does that affect me? That was then and this is now. If all were known to you what would you do different? Not a whole lot you can do about the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:51 PM McGrath of Harlow and Bobert, From what I've read, I would agree with you both that the so-called "Civil War" was a mess and a misunderstanding. Though the slaves were freed, the cost in lives, in injuries, and in lingering bitterness was immense. It is speculation, of course, but I would also guess that the war was avoidable and that, as in Brazil, the slaves would have been freed anyway. Jack the Sailor, Slavery and white supremacy and secession are related issues, but they are not the same issue. There were, for example, non-whites who owned slaves. There were small farmers who were white supremacists, but who opposed slavery as unfair competition. Some people opposed slavery as cruel and degrading, but still thought that whites were superior. The slave states were divided on secession. Maryland, Kentucky, and Deleware didn't secede. Missouri and eastern Tennessee were bitterly divided. The northwestern part of Virginia seceded from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the U.S. It was a mess. However, four things are clear: 1) Had there been no secession, there would have been no war, 2) Had Lincoln and the gang not opposed secession by force of arms, there would have been no war, 3) Lincoln et al rallied the North to fight "for the Union", not to fight for racial equality, and 4) Although the war started in 1861, the Union waited until January 1, 1863, to proclaim that slaves in the C.S.A. were free, and waited until the war was OVER before freeing (on December 18, 1865) slaves in the UNION. Hence, it seems clear that the war was not fought over white supremacy, nor was slavery the direct cause of the war. Slavery was a huge issue, but the issue about which the bullets actually flew was secession. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:01 PM Good point Jack the Sailor. There is still a resvoir of racial resentment and thinly cloaked intolerence in parts of the south I have been to. Little things are sometimes said with a wink like YOU are in on the real attitude toward black folk. I never winked back. Had the North been more fair minded and less rapacious during the Reconstruction I believe much of the resentment would have died away by now. That's another one of those endless speculations though. What happened IS what happened and the work goes on from where we are now. olliamh, the US Civil War is one of the most studied wars of all times and analyses of the same has been required learning for West Point officers, if I remember correctly. It was a transition from the European style used by Napoleon and others into true modern warfare. Again, you have the wonderful advantage of being 150 and some odd years removed. Thank you for your superior military insights. As for Robert E. Lee, he was a much respected military man on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line. He was also reluctant to enter the war and this is well documented. Also let me ask you if you are as adamant about the slavery that goes on today in this country and around the world. Are YOU ready to fight against it? You sound as though you are and there is a crying need for those who will take on the issue. Slavery in one form or another has been around since longer than history and has been practiced in every culture at one time or another. It was often a means of survival and people on the outs desired to be slaves rather than to strave to death or worse. Certain Romans slaves held high offices and conducted the business of their masters faithfully and were members of the household. Some Southern slave owners sought to do right by those they owned and faced a hostile opposition by members of their own community and family. Some worked to get slaves out of the south. They were good people who were part of the culture in which they were born. Needless to say, I never met General Lee and I certainly do not know what was in his heart beyond his own words. Up to World War One, the Civil War was the greatest conflict of all times. I'm drawing on memory now but i believe that it involve four times the number of troops all told of the Napoleonic Wars. Those who participated, those who conducted the war had never been through such a thing and they were constantly breaking new ground. You bring up an interesting issue, especially seeing that blacks fought on both sides too. As stated elsewhere, the economy of the South was slavery dependent and slaves escaping to the North was a tremedous determent as lincoln knew it would be when he issued the Emancipation Declaration. It was a war tactic. Was it right? No. Not much is right about wars. It's mass murder on an almost unimaginable scale. The thing about wars is that once begun it involves everyone to some degree because at that point, the point of war, you are fighting for your very lives as well as for the lives of all those at home. The shame be upon those who push for war and not negotiation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:15 PM Neither Robert E. Lee nor Jefferson Davis ordered the execution of black union troops... Might of fact, until the Battle for Petersburg there weren't all that many black union troop involved in the war in a fighting capacity and if ya' remember, Petersburg was right there toward the end of the war... So I don't buy that... Decisions are made that have far reaching effects... The entire war was terribly messed up... Lincoln was trigger happy... Jeff Davis was, too... That ain't great leadership... That is failed leadership... Guess folks thought it was a bigass hardi-har-har joke until 1st Manassas... Great leaders don't allow that shit to happen... Lincoln is equally guilty... I mean, I'm Southern born, educated and raised but other than enjoyin' the view of the James River from where Jefferson Davis's body lies in Hollywood Cemetery, I ain't got no use fir him neither... As for generals??? No, Lee wasn't all that great... Nor was McClellan... Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson??? Maybe... Sho nuff knew his way around the Virginia mountains and valleys... I mean, the Civil (which it wasn't) War was a fucked up mess on both sides... Slavery had to go but not that way... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:58 PM The war was fought over the third issue. The North went to war to stop the South seceding, true enough. But the reason the South tried to secede was to preserve slavery, which it (wrongly) thought was under threat. Basically it was, in a sense, a misunderstanding. I think it likely that if the South had been allowed to secede, slavery would have been ended within a generation, as happened in Brazil, and the outcome could well have been a country with a prevailing attitude towards race more akin to Brazil than to the post-civil-war South. Who knows? It's all airy speculation, with no answers. Nothing worth getting excited about at this distance of time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:48 PM I don't think it is a big step any more than I think Christine O'Donnell did the women's movement any great benefit. I don't think anything about the Tea Party is worthy of celebrating and I don't think they have anything to do with Lincoln. That is just my opinion though. And the Civil war was about succession over slavery. Everyone know that. White supremacy, slavery, abolition, succession and the Civil War were all one issue in that all were completely intertwined. They were all strands in one cable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:33 PM Greg F, White supremacy is an issue. Abolition is a different issue. Secession is a third issue. The war was fought over the third issue. I said nothing about either the second or the third issue. I addressed only the first. Jack the Sailor, When I said that these elections represent "another big step toward post-racial politics", I meant that these elections represent another big step toward post-racial politics. Bobert, As you well know, I did not say anything even remotely like "the North is rejoining the South in terms of white people thinking they are the superior race". In fact, I said the exact opposite, that the SOUTH is joining the NORTH in terms of white people realizing that they are NOT a superior race. That is well worth celebrating. From the biographical bits I have gleaned from your posts, you have personally been working toward the goal of a post-racial America for decades. The goal is not yet achieved, but we are slowly getting closer. Getting closer is worth celebrating. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:38 PM Slag, I'm not making you out to be a racist. I don't know you. I didn't live in the south then, but I do now and have for most of the past 12 years. Here is some news! The emergence teabagger, black Congressmen has not eliminated racism from the South. In fact many still proudly display racist symbols and slogans in the back windows of their trucks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: ollaimh Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM this long lasting csa feeling astonishes me. as a canadian i can't imagine the evil and wickedness of the old south. slavery had to be wiped from the face of the earth by any means reasonable. i meet southerners who routinely seem to be ok with slavery. that appears to be a culture of racism and evil, which unlike nazi germany didn't learn much from defeat. and the feeling of entitlement to subsidy. we get that in canada. our largest cities are tax cash cows while the rural areas are recipients of huge transfer payments. all the while the rural people think they are being ripped off by the cities. very delusional thinking. back to slavery. davis and robert e lee and most other csa leaders were the worst of hard core racists in history. for example they ordered the execution of all balck union soldiers captured--this is historical fact--regardless of hwere they were born or if born free or slave. grant noticed that there were no black soldiers comming back from the prisoner exchanges, so he cancelled them. lee had no explaination. and this murderous racist is a hero in the south--its unbelieveable, but shows they have a culture so racist they never examine their own history. finally lee may have been agreat american general but wouldn't even make tyhe list of great generals worldwide(sorry to the ethnocentric americans). he had no long term strategic plan on how to win the war, just local tatical approaches. you have to win a war not just hurt the enemy. and at gettysburg he was so full of hubriss that his master stroke was a FRONTAL ATTACK ON A ENTRENCHED POSITION causing twenty thousand casualities and a greatdefeat. he won tactical victories against inferior union generals untill he met one who just sat tight and didn't react to his fakeouts and manouvers and kept at the attack--grant. grant was a practical general and easily defeated lee by long term strategic planning and logistics. lee was no reall general on a world scale but did personally order the exucution of prisoners of war because of their skin colour. a shamefull art by a man of infamy and any who extoll him ought to hang their heads in shame!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 10 - 07:20 AM An interesting site in which many of the issues touched on here get exhaustively chewed over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 10 - 06:53 AM When considering people in a different time and place we should always recognise that we have no right to feel superior, just because we are fortunate enough to live in a time and place where the views they held and the things they did are seen as wrong. We have no reason for assuming that in their circumstances we wouldn't have been just the same. At the same time we should recognise that there were people at that time who did not go along with the prevailing racist assumptions. Going along with the majority was a choice, then as now, not an inescapable obligation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,kendall Date: 05 Nov 10 - 04:22 AM We must judge people by THEIR time, not ours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:01 AM Thanks for making my point Sailing Jack! You have espoused the Northern point of view. Because the North won I did not feel I had to explain simple truths to simple folk. This is what a vast majority of Americans know, understand and believe, including myself. There are a few knotheads of the other persuassion who will not give it up for anything, the white supremacists and their ilk. Do yourself a favor and quit trying to make me out a racist. I'm not and you are missing my point. I AM saying that had YOU lived in the South at this time, the supremacy of the white race would have been the "given" and by all odds, you would have held those views, same as your peers. You would have sneered at abolitionists the same as you are sneering at me. True, the abolition movement was farther along and growing while today white supremacy seems to be headed out but it was still a hot topic of debate, antebellum. Some folks like to point to England's earlier accomplishment of abolishing slavery on their shores but I would argue that it was much easier for a nation who's big problem was exporting "surplus population" and who had a much greater labor pool to exploit than it was for the South to do without slave-labor. This is time and circumstances. As late as around 1899 Rudyard Kipling penned "The Whiteman's Burden". They may have ended "slavery" per se, but they still had a discrimination problem of their own. Some of you guys like to try to paint folks you may disagree with as racist but you are really trying to wedge apart fellow Americans and unjustly, I might add. And as alwyas it is better to seek common ground and promote understanding than to be in someone's face, use smear tactics and character assassination to feel good about your cause. I could explain more about where that attitude comes from but not here and not now. If you are honest people, you will know that what I have put forth is truth. Let truth be the dividing line and not a snobbish superiority attitude. That has been my main thrust all along. What went down in the Civil War was too big in scope to have been totally percieved then by any one man or any group of men, and not as it is today perceived. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:11 PM No Bobert, I think he is saying that the election of a couple of black Tea Baggers means racism is going away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:57 PM Hmmmmmmm, Kent... If I understand what you are saying is that the North is rejoining the South in terms of white people thinking they are the superior race??? Yes, no??? That yer intent??? Seems to be the assertion in celebrating the fact that folks in the North are now in agreement with Redneck Nation??? No??? Sure sounds like what you are sayin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:00 PM In the 20th Century, the North and the South diverged on white supremacy... Not quite. There were substantial nummbers, north and south, who "diverged" in the mid 19th Century. The idea that there were no abolitionists in the South or Unionists in the South is a fallacy of the first order. See Hinton Rowan Helper, et. al. The South was NOT monolithic in its support for secession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:35 PM Greg F., No one here is celebrating belief in white supremacy. Quite the contrary. In the 19th Century, belief in white supremacy was not a point about which the North and the South disagreed. Most whites everywhere assumed white supremacy. In the 20th Century, the North and the South diverged on white supremacy; the North got that particular point right sooner than the South did. Recent elections show that, in the 21st Century, the North and the South are again reaching agreement on this issue, and they are both getting it right this time. That is what I am celebrating and, I trust, what we all are celebrating. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:13 PM Self determination??? Well, yeah... They wanted stuff to stay just they wanted it to stay... Meaning, slavery... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:02 PM They also fought gallantly for self-determination, which is a worthy cause per se. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:47 PM Tread lightly on the graves of those who fought valiantly for their beliefs. Like the Nazis, for instance? Gimmie a fu$king break. The South fought valiently for the belief in white supremacy and that chattel slavery was a positive good. Thios is nothing that should be revered or celebrated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:42 PM ...the 'right' to exploit other people for their own economic gain. Surely that wasn't a point of difference between the two sides? There were two different ideas about how exploitation ought to be done, with the chattel slavery one being even nastier than the other. I think only one side thought of it as a right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM Ni, it wasn't exclusively about slavery it's just that the other reasons were dwarfed by the slavery issue... No matter... Lincoln ain't one of favorites... He didn't do everything he could to prevent the war... And... ...100!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM ...the 'right' to exploit other people for their own economic gain. Surely that wasn't a point of difference between the two sides? There were two different ideas about how exploitation ought to be done, with the chattel slavery one being even nastier than the other. As has been pointed out, the initial war aim of Washington wasn't to abolish slavery, but to prevent secession. What is also true however is that the reason for the secession was to preserve the slave system - which was not in fact under threat. One interesting thing is that the first serious talk of secession was in the New England states in the early years of the 19th century. At that time of course the Southern States were wholly opposed to any right of secession,such as applies in most federations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM >>The war was and was not about slavery. It was about the South and slavery just happened to be part of the Southern way. The North made the distinction and the South did not. << Bullshit. You said it was about the "Southern way of life." If the Southern way of Life was unimaginable without slavery then the was about slavery. The plantation owners fought the war for the "right" to exploit other people for their own economic gain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:34 PM Can't really argue with that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM No McGarth! I'm thuroughly conditioned to my culture and the outcome is what I would have desired it to be, I am a Christian first and know that God's love is to all of mankind and that He reveals Himself to the humble and resists the proud. What I am saying is that it is hubris to condemn an "easy" historical target in the light of history and having seen the results, the cause and effect relationshjp of so much that was unknown to those who lived through it. You know, it's kind of the forest and tree thing. It's not until you're out of the woods that you begin to see the nature of the forest, the terrain and all. And, of course, we ought to learn from history but do we? Do we not realize that we are in our own forest, struggling to see the bigger picture? No one (meaning me) is trying to obfucate the picture. Rather I would hope that you all see contrast, point and counter-point for you musical types. We ALL tend to look at things through our "me" colored glasses and we seldom stop to think that those glasses were handed down to us. Our language and culture are loaded with hidden bias which can be polarizing, to extend the metaphor, Tread lightly on the graves of those who fought valiantly for their beliefs. You do not know what some future generation will say about your own values that lie with you beneath the sod. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:57 AM Just a little humility from you all please And just a few facts, rather than NeoConfederate obfuscations and "Lost Cause" fairytale interpretations of history from you would be appreciated as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:16 AM Pedantic note: Had things gone the other way many of us would be sitting around and remarking about how fortuitous it was that the South won... "Fortuitous" means by chance or accidentally. Perhaps you meant that Slag, but I suspect you meant "fortunate". ..................... The more plausible alternative history isn't one in which the war happened and the South won, but one in which the states in question were allowed to secede, and there was not a war at that point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Slag Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:47 AM Oh, I was about to opine something or the other but maybe I will just offer you this: You would have had to have been there to understand. Slavery was such an integral part of the economic and social fabric of the South that life without slavery was virtually unimaginable to most of the land owners. They were still aristocratic in their views and life styles. This was also the land where the duel lived on and what one said and what one implied could end in death and often did. Free speech that was contrary to popular opinion could easily result in one's imminent demise. To most the division between the North and South was so sharply demarcated that the ultimate separation was a forgone conclusion. Many saw this as a peaceful parting of the ways. Lincoln did not. To him, the preseravtion of the Uniion was everything. He bet the nuts. The African slave trade had been going on for hundreds of years before there ever was a United States. by and large it was conducted at the African end of things by Arab slavers, much as it still is today. The US just opened up new markets for the slavers and middlemen in the industry. The invention of the cotton gin really turned the thing into the huge business it had become right up until the "War of Northern Aggression". See, the South was at peace with its way of life. The war was and was not about slavery. It was about the South and slavery just happened to be part of the Southern way. The North made the distinction and the South did not. I just notice that in all the discussion above there is no real effort made to understand what was in the minds of those folks who were living through the times. They did not have the luxury of being armchair quarterbacks to the events of the day. They were making the decisions and living with the consequences day by day as things developed. We can't see our future clearly and neither could most of those who were part of the Great War Between the States. They were as smart and dumb as any today and most were doing the best they could with what they had. Had things gone the other way many of us would be sitting around and remarking about how fortuitous it was that the South won and while there would still be detractors they would be considered the oddballs. Why? Because history shape our perceptions, our culture and our interpertation of all things. And who knows? Maybe in a relaxed time, had the South won the war, slavery would have ended regardless, especially with new inventions in farming equipment and science of agriculture. We can never know if that would have been the case because that is NOT how things went. Just a little humility from you all please, and know that those folks, for the most part were doing all they knew to try and work thing out with the limited tools of thought and compromise, of action and response and the "having never passed this way before", they had. That's all. Don't be so smug in your judgments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:02 PM Final results: Charles Lollar lost in Maryland with 35% of the vote. Allen West won in Florida with 54%. Tim Scott won in South Carolina with 65% of the vote. Jennifer Carroll (running mate of Rick Scott) is Florida's Lt. Governor-elect. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:07 AM "Everyone needs a dog to kick." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 02 Nov 10 - 11:53 PM As I write this, Allen West has 55% of the vote in Florida's 22nd Congressional District. Tim Scott has 66% of the vote in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District. Charles Lollar lost in Maryland's 5th. Florida Lt. Gov. hopeful Jennifer Carroll is ahead, but it's close. Another big step toward post-racial politics. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 03 Sep 10 - 10:28 AM She's not a REAL American - born in Trinidad! Could be an Islamist sleeper agent. Or more likely a Voodoo-ist sleeper, gonna turn the whole country into Zombies, turn the country over to Danbhala-Wedo. HEY! Lets see her birth certificate & naturalization pepers! Also a declaration of Christian Faith & certificate of Baptism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 03 Sep 10 - 07:35 AM Mighty purdy woman to have such screwed up politics... But then look at Ms. Sarah??? B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:15 AM More great news from below the Mason-Dixon line: http://www.rickscottforflorida.com/home/home/meet-the-lg/ Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:04 PM Rigs isn't an albino by any chance, is he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:24 PM Yeah, mouser.... Seems that Rigs has become the main entertainment around here... Prolly plays a banjo, too... lol... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:19 PM "I don't know any rappers who have banjo players in their bands..." And that pretty much sums up the problems with RAP... You never cease to amaze me. Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing you've ever said, you top yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:13 PM "I don't know any rappers who have banjo players in their bands..." And that pretty much sums up the problems with RAP... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:07 PM The problem with the black community are members of the white community who feel superior enough to tell the black community what is wrong with it... What, there are no white womanizers, drug dealers or criminals??? As for Rap??? Hey, it is a form of "folk music" and lots of it is purdy good stuff... And, plus, I don't know any rappers who have banjo players in their bands... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:38 PM And people say there's no racism in the good ol' U.S. of A. Not people with IQ's above sweater temperature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:22 AM And people say there's no racism in the good ol' U.S. of A. Damn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: pdq Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:13 AM J. C. Watts served in the US House from 1995-2003, choosing to leave politics for the business world. He was a former star football player at Oklahoma and a youth councelor. While in Congress, he was not invited to join the Congressional Black Caucus, a place that proudly boasted such members as Charlie Rangel and William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. The biggest problem in the Black Community is that they have the wrong types of people as role models: rappers, womanizers, drug dealers and criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:59 AM What progress?? Seems every bit of progress has been forced on the South and no something that the South came up with on it's own... Heck, how many years did it take afer Brown V. Topeke Board of Ed before the Sotuh desegregated it's schools??? And look what it took... Now we see that de facto segregation is creeping back into many Southern schools??? That's what I mean... Given a free hand I think there are alot of Southerners who would love to turn the clock back a couple hundred years when it come to dealing with black people... At least where I live... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:01 AM Maybe its because its hard to believe that things haven't progressed further in the in the last century and a half? Dylan's "Only A Pawn In Their Game" may have been a fair assessment in 1963. After fifty years, he sure as hell CAN be blamed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,Kendall Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:01 AM Maybe it's because people don't get praise for doing the right thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:42 PM In the South, in the days of Reconstruction, African-American Republicans were elected to public office. In the days of Jim Crow and the "Solid South", hardly any African-Americans of any party were elected, and hardly any Republicans of any race. In the last quarter of the last century, African-Americans again were elected, but mostly Democrats. Now, African-Americans are being elected from both parties. I think that's a good thing. There are now 75 posts on this thread. No one else has had a single good thing to say about the progress the South had made. Ironic, isn't it, that, on this thread, the progressives are so pessimistic, and the only one celebrating progress is the conservative. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:18 PM How far back do you want to go? Slavery was condoned in the Old Testament. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 25 Jul 10 - 09:54 AM Well, the Vikings dragged some unwilling Frenchmen over on longboat in the eleventh century and dumped them on the cruel shores of Quebec, no? Just speculatin'.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jul 10 - 08:30 AM Try this & the pertinent works cited in his bibliography instead of a one-page website summation/condensation; might straighten things out a bit: Berlin, Ira: Many Thousands Gone - The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Harvard U. Press, 1998. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:01 AM As I recall it was the Dutch who started it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:50 AM The route from Ghana to the Caribbean does cross the Atlantic, mouser... Nobody made that trip until after 1492. But pdq's article said the trans-Atlantic slave trade started in the mid-15th century. Do you see the discrepancy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:58 PM The route from Ghana to the Caribbean does cross the Atlantic, mouser... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:55 PM Details, mouser... Yeah, Capt'n... The term "redneck" has evolved over the years... These days it is purdy much settled in on a certain segment of our society who, ahhhhh, let's say ain't all that enlightened, tolerant or educated... Now those are general terms, mind you... Had to throw that in seein' as I used to race cars with rednecks and, heck, I reckon I gotta along with 'um purdy good... But I never told 'um I had two friggin' college degrees 'er they woulda ganged up on me and wrecked me but that stuff didn't happen... Well, on purpose, that is... Couple minor skirmishes but that's racin'... Glad to not be doin' that no more, tho... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:06 PM How can something be trans-atlantic if it doesn't cross the Atlantic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:35 PM As far as I'm concerned, the term "Redneck" was originally a name given to honest hard working miners who just wanted a fair shake. Then they were demonized by the greedy mine owners. Check out the Battle of Blair Mountain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: pdq Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:10 PM ...here is a link: http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/tp/TransAtlantic001.htm The Trans-Atlantic Slave TradeA review of the triangular trade with reference to maps and statistics. By Alistair Boddy-Evans "The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade began around the mid-fifteenth century when Portuguese interests in Africa moved away from the fabled deposits of gold to a much more readily available commodity -- slaves. By the seventeenth century the trade was in full swing, reaching a peak towards the end of the eighteenth century. It was a trade which was especially fruitful, since every stage of the journey could be profitable for merchants -- the infamous triangular trade. Why did the Trade Begin? Expanding European empires in the New World lacked one major resource -- a work force. In most cases the indigenous peoples had proved unreliable (most of them were dying from diseases brought over from Europe), and Europeans were unsuited to the climate and suffered under tropical diseases. Africans, on the other hand, were excellent workers: they often had experience of agriculture and keeping cattle, they were used to a tropical climate, resistant to tropical diseases, and they could be "worked very hard" on plantations or in mines. Was Slavery New to Africa? Africans had been traded as slaves for centuries -- reaching Europe via the Islamic-run, trans-Saharan, trade routes. Slaves obtained from the Muslim dominated North African coast however proved to be too well educated to be trusted and had a tendency to rebellion. Slavery was also a traditional part of African society -- various states and kingdoms in Africa operated one or more of the following: chattel slavery, debt bondage, forced labor, and serfdom. See Types of Slavery in Africa for more on this topic. What was the Triangular Trade? All three stages of the Triangular Trade (named for the rough shape it makes on a map) proved lucrative for merchants. The first stage of the Triangular Trade involved taking manufactured goods from Europe to Africa: cloth, spirit, tobacco, beads, cowrie shells, metal goods, and guns. The guns were used to help expand empires and obtain more slaves (until they were finally used against European colonizers). These goods were exchanged for African slaves. The second stage of the Triangular Trade (the middle passage) involved shipping the slaves to the Americas. The third, and final, stage of the Triangular Trade involved the return to Europe with the produce from the slave-labor plantations: cotton, sugar, tobacco, molasses and rum." {see link for continuation} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 24 Jul 10 - 06:28 PM 1450? Hell, Columbus wasn't even born until 1451. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:59 PM I have always insisted that war is the final failure. Kendall, I couldn't agree more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:34 PM Me thinks the dates might be a tad off, as well... When did the Potugese discover Brazil??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:25 PM 40% went to Brazil 40% went to the Carribean 15% went to countries other that the US 5% went to what is now the US (remember, Spain and France claimed much of the territory at one time) Your percentages seem skewed, pdq. What am I missing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: pdq Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:11 PM ...to answer a question about slavery and Brazil... During the Atantic Slave Trade era, approximately 1450-1850, 40% went to Brazil 40% went to the Carribean 15% went to countries other that the US 5% went to what is now the US (remember, Spain and France claimed much of the territory at one time) In 1800, over half of the residents of Brazil were African slaves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:11 PM Fort Sumpter was Lincon's and the country's Rubicon... As fir Southerners *all* being this or that... No, ain't that way at all... Just way too many in porportion to the overall populations... Hey, there are rednecks everywhere... Boston, I've heard, has a large number of 'um... The problem when you get too many rednecks in one state is that you rednecks in Congress... That's a bad thing and all ya' gotta do is look at the current Congress to see that Redneck Nation is overly represented... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 10 - 04:42 PM Greg F you are right, few people know about the Star of the West. In any case, I have always insisted that war is the final failure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 11:24 AM Kent, I don't know enough about the history of slavery in Brazil- other than it ended in 1888- to make an informed comment. I DO know, however, that the situations & conditions in the countries you cite were vastly different than those in the US, and therefore may not be appropriate analogues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 24 Jul 10 - 11:20 AM It just came to me...as a Southerner, I'm kinda slow, you know...that the reason Tim Scott won the Republican primary in South Carolina is that those ol' stupid racists just didn't notice he was African-American. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bYLFLbBeME&feature=related Yea, that's got to be it. Couldn't be progress of any kind. Not in the South. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 11:09 AM I'm saying that there had been a shooting war long before Beauregard ordered the bombardment on April 12, 1861. For that matter, the REAL first shot was fired on Jan 10th, 1861 when South Carolinian batteries on Morris Island fired on the US Ship "Star of the West". Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 4th. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:59 AM There's no way to test the hypothesis that only war would have ended slavery in the South, is there? You may be right, Greg F.. Blacks were certainly a smaller portion of New York's population than of South Carolina's, and so it was doubtless easier to free New York slaves. Greg F. can correct me on this, but I was under the impresion that slaves were not a tiny proportion of Brazil's population. Yet they were freed without a fratricidal war. I didn't think serfs were a small portion of Russia's population, yet they seem to have been emancipated without St. Petersburg ordering Moscow burnt to the ground. I thought Blacks were a large portion of South Africa's population, yet I don't recall that apartheid was ended by Natal smashing the Transvaal or crushing the Orange Free State. I thought there were a lot of thralls in Scandanavia, but I somehow missed that it took war between Norway and Sweden to free them. Maybe I missed those wars. And maybe Bobert et al have it right. Maybe it is not at all prejudiced to say of Southerners that, as long as a particular television channel exists, "there is really no pressures being put on them to behave like real human beings". They are just stupid, those Southerners, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ralph Stanley,Woodrow Wilson, Harper Lee, Truman Capote, Woodie Guthrie, Flannery O'Connor, Stephen Foster, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Light Horse Harry Lee, Bobert...well, maybe not Bobert, and maybe not Bill Clinton, but it is certainly NOT prejudiced to say that Southerners are stupid. Barely human, they are snaggled-toothed hate-preaching creatures from the lower end of the gene pool, in denial, parasites, those Rednecks even call people insulting names. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:34 AM Me thinks you are splittin' hairs here, Greg, ol' buddy... The firing at Fort Sumpter is considered by most historians to be the shots that started the Civil (which it wasn't) War... No??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:28 AM Like I said, Man - check out "Bleeding Kansas" as one example - live ammunition had been issued & there were plenty of corpses long before Abe came along. (Not to mention all of the corpses of Black folks worked or "corrected" and "disciplined" to death......) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:22 AM Okay, Greg... Point well taken... Let me rephrase... Lincoln bungled it in terms of allowing the live ammunition to be used in the dispute... You know, the "hot war" stuff where people kill one another in mass... BTW, Lee was a Virginian... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:09 AM It was all Lees fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 09:27 AM he bungled things to the point where the nation was at war with itself... Naah, Bobert - the Nation had been at war with itself ever since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 & Mason & Dixon's Line. Mexican War didn't help matters. The Compromise of 1850 only made things worse, as did the Dredd Scott decision & the Fugitive Slave Act. The two sides were already shooting at each other in Kansas & Missouri in the mid 1850's. Blaming Lincoln for the war is just like blaming Obama for the mess he was handed by Reagan, Bush I & Bush II. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:41 AM Oh yeah, Greg... John Calhoun was a redneck of the highest order... But he was not alone... Yeah, I very much do blame the leaders in the South fir continuing to preech hatred... They're still very much at it except hatred has been codified but everyone knows the code (wink, wink) including black folk livin' in the South... Actually, IMHO, the black folk have adapted alot better than Redneck Nation... They understand that "can't we all just get along" stuff where Redneck Nation doesn't want to get along and is proud of it... I mean, they have their heros who also don't want to get along.... You know, like the Stroker Aces and the Hank William Juniors... "We say grace and we say mam and if you ain't into that we don't give a damned"... Plus they have their very own publicly broaqdcast hate chalnnel in FOX so there is really no pressures being put on them to behave like real human beings... I see it every day... I am completely surrounded by these folks... They don't give a second thought to referring to black folks as niggers... I mean, not a second thought... And if someone pointed it out to them they'd go "Huh???"... As for Lincoln, I will admit that he grew into the job but that was after he bungled things to the point where the nation was at war with itself... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:04 AM I do know that the Civil War was one fucked up deal... Any arguments there??? None. And I will gladly check out that book if you can remember tha author. I'm not saying that Lincoln was a saint or a demigod- just that we need to stick with the facts. He wasn't some evil south-hating dictator, either. He was a man placed in a VERY difficult situation and, overall, he made more than a good job out of it. Sorry, Kent, but you argument doesn't hold water.It didn't take a war to end slavery in New York because its economy & society wasn't based on chattel slavery, and Blacks were only a tiny percentage of the population. There's nothing to indicate the South would have "eventually" - whatever that means- voluntarily given up slavery at home or their demands that it be extended country-wide. the Emancipation Proclamation involved the freeing of slaves in confederate states... Go figure??? Easy. Once word got out, the many thousands of "Contrabands" that flocked into Union Lines deprived the Confederacy of that much labor. Plus, a good number of 'em ended up carrying muskets in the Union Army. Pretty clever dude, Old Abe. ...resentment that is still very part of the mindset of a lot of Southerners even today.... It is hatred... Southerners might want to direct some - if not all?- of that resentment and hatred at the Southern politicians & plantation aristocracy that together dragged them, over a 40 year ramp-up, into an idiotic war. Its instructive to read the speeches of John C. Calhoun & his ilk in Congress- the man comes off like Glenn Beck. And the Southern Newspapers of the time- the Richmond Examiner, perhaps, or the Charleston Mercury, etc.- make Fox News look like Ed Murrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,Riginslinger Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:29 AM Yeah, that's right Bobert. The Republicans ended up with a bunch of Dixiecrats who are helping to elect Democrats in other parts of the country now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:05 AM Actually, to be historically accurate it was Lyndon Johnson who started the "Southern Strategy" with his pushing the "Civil Rights Act"... Afterwards he said that in doing so the Democratic Party would be dead in the South for decades to come... So Lyndon put the "Southern Strategy" on the fewnce and all the Repubs had to do was open their eyes to the gift that Lyndon had all but gift-wrapped for them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 10 - 06:48 AM "Stereotypes offer us the luxury of not thinking; then, they will extract the PRICE of our not thinking." (Stranger in two worlds author, Jean Harris) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: LadyJean Date: 24 Jul 10 - 12:12 AM THE MAN WHO PUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE TOILET, RICHARD BLOODY MILLHOUSE NIXON, WAS FROM CALIFORNIA!!!! IT WAS HIS "SOUTHERN STRATEGY THAT STARTED THIS MESS." HIS STRATEGY WASN'T ABOUT THE SOUTH, OR THE NORTH, OR THE MIDWEST, OR THE CALIFORNIA COASTLINE. IT WAS ABOUT GETTING REPUBLICANS IN POWER AND KEEPING THEM THERE. THE S.O.B. HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR!!!!! For the record, I had family on both sides of the civil war. Great grandfather William B. McFall served with John Bell Hood's Texans. He came north after the war, and married Martha Ramage, whose family home had been a station on the underground railroad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 23 Jul 10 - 11:40 PM I'm with Bobert on this one. It didn't take an invasion to end slavery in New York or in Brazil, nor to end serfdom in Russia, nor apartheid in South Africa. I know of no reason to think that the South alone would have clung to its peculiar institution until a gun was held to its forehead. Yes, Lincoln's actions ended slavery sooner, but at fearful cost, not only during the war, but for generations to come. Having agreed with Bobert on that, I must disagree that Southern stereotypes are somehow not really stereotypes because they are sometimes accurate. OF COURSE they are sometimes accurate. Stereotypes arise when an accurate observation is over-generalized, when a trait found in SOME members of a group is treated as if it were found generally among the members of that group. I assure you that, in South Carolina in 1969, there were African-Americans who were lazy. The problem was that not a few white people acted as if all or most of them were lazy. That was prejudice, and pointing out a lazy African-American down at the Esso station didn't change that fact. A person who thinks that male nurses are homosexual is prejudiced, even though some male nurses are actually homosexuals. A person who thinks Jews are greedy is prejudiced, even though some Jews are actually greedy. A person who thinks Southerners are stupid is prejudiced, even though some Southerners actually are stupid. A person who thinks all Mudcatters are...you get the idea. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:29 PM The twist on that, Kendall, is that the Emancipation Proclamation involved the freeing of slaves in confederate states... Go figure??? Fact is stranger than fiction... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:25 PM The southern planters were expected to give up slavery if the went into Kansas and Nebraska. That is giving up their slaves unless you need to nit pick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:15 PM BTW, I do a song now and then written by Fred Dobbs back awile and recoded by a 70's band called "Heartsfield"... The name of the song is "Drummer Boy" and there's a line in the song that goes... ...different way of livin' cross the Mason-Dixon line... Says alot about perceptions of Lincoln even today... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:31 PM Might wanta read "Lincoln"... Don't remember the author, right off hand but it'll come to me and I'll post it later... Different story... Lotta ways of lookin' at stuff that happened when none of us were there... I do know that the Civil War was one fucked up deal... Any arguments there??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:22 PM Interersiing speculation - but only that. Speculation. Where's the evidence for any of it? Might benefit from reading Eric Foner's Recontruction (or Forever Free a.k.a. Reconstruction Light)" & Leon Litwack's Been In The Storm So Long. Doris Kerns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" (as well as among many other fine analyses of Lincoln's admionistration)also shows the great lengths that Lincoln went to precisely to avoid war. Check 'em out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:50 PM Yeah, mouser, I am suggesting that Jim Crow was a direct result of the Civil War... Let's look at several factors here: 1. Postwar Southern whites blamed blacks (slavery) for being the the reason for a war in which Southern whites were ultimately humiliated and beaten... 2. During Reconstruction(not)/Occupation blacks were elevated to positions of authority by the "occupiers" (Union army)... 3. Black were given land that had previously been owned by whites... 4. The postwar Southern survivors weren't the brightest and the best of what the Sotuh had prior of the war... Thuslym the South was populated with the snaggle-tooths who just didn't have a knowledge base to figure out "what's next for Us"... Still is in many ways... 5. The entire master/slave relationship which had survived for 250 was abruptly over throwing Southern whites into unknown territory... I mean, one has to keep in mind that the South was decimated, humiliated, burned, degregated and beaten down from the lose of the war and the subsequent 11 year occupation so when the occupiers left in early 1877 there were one shit load of very angry white Southerners... So here is my treatise... Had the war not occured here's how I think things would/could have played out... The South was very dependent on the industrial North and trade would have continued between the USA and the CSA... The abolitionist movement in the North, which had been gaining momentum, would have brought about an end to slaver by 1870... With that momentum and the pressures from the South's main European trading partners, the English and the French, the abolitionist movement would have brought about a fiercly fought out battle in the CSA Seanate to end slavery in the early 1890's with some kind of "share cropping" arrangement between plantation owners and their slaves... The operative word here is "agreement"... These things would have occured... Maybe not on the exact time table I have laid out but they would have happened... And had these changes evolved an un-necessary and bloody war would have been averted, the South would not have been so humiliated and decimated leaving it's white survivors so hate filled... That hate, which fueled Jim Crow back then and the Tea Party today, has been passed down from generation to generation in the South... The hatred hasn't subsided for way too many Southern whites... So, this is my treatise... It isn't something that just popped into my head... I have thought off and on about this purdy much all my life... Yeah, it might have meant that USA and the CSA never would have reconciled but if there is one event in out history that I could change it would have been for Lincoln to have been the truelu great mand that many think he is and gone the extra mile to not allow that war to occur... I could live with a CSA that isn't consumed with hatred alot easier that what I see today in the South... This from a Southern born and Southern raised hillbilly... And ya'll know what??? You can make any arguments you want but you can't disprove this treatise... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 06:04 PM Probably on the same basis as the contention that the Civil War was fought over "States' Rights". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 23 Jul 10 - 05:58 PM Are you saying that if slavery had ended without the Civil War, there would not have been Jim Crow? On what do you base that astounding claim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 05:57 PM What the north wanted the south to do was to give up their most valuable assets. Slaves. No, exactly wrong. You've bought into the Lost Cause fairy-tale. What was at issue was NOT abolition (yes, yes, abolitionists were a bloc in the North, and some in the South as well, but a minority one that the South blew all out of proportion for propaganda purposes), but the expansion of slavery. No one was going have to "give up their most valuable assets." The South brought that on themselves when they attacked the United States. Lincoln's repeatedly and consistently stated position was that it would be unconstutional to interfere with slavery WHERE IT EXISTED. Ditto the majority of the population in the North. Best review U.S. history 1820-1861 & the whole issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 05:14 PM Exactly right, Kendall... That's why Lincoln shouldn't be worshiped as this great president... He had options and choose the ones that ended up being the wrong ones... Slavery was going to end... In a number of ways Jim Crow was worse than slavery becuase of the economic conditions that former slaves suffered plus the relentless hatred and terrporism of the remaining white people in the South... And in saying that I'm sure that someone is going to come along and say that ol' hillbilly supports slavery... Before anyone does I'm going on record of saying "Hell no, I don't support slavery" so don't send that dog out to hunt 'cause he ain't got no hunt in him... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 04:47 PM Consider this. What the north wanted the south to do was to give up their most valuable assets. Slaves. How would we react if the government demanded that we give up our equity in our homes? Clearly the north forced them into a corner and they felt they had no choice but to fight. Just as Japan did when FDR froze their assets in the USA. There are plenty of "brown" sandwiches to go around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 12:11 PM Precisely my point, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM To someone who had a minie ball or a saber blade pass through his brain from front to back, say, I would think "unpleasantness" would be the understatement of the millenium... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:42 AM Yup, they've been perpetuating that fairy-tale since 1861. Well, actually, if you check the debates in Congress, since about 1820. They also call it, or did until very recently, "The Late Unpleasantness". Denial can be a wondrous thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:02 AM Thats what they call it down south. I should have indicated tongue in cheek. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:00 AM That's "War of Northern Aggression" in quotes, Kendall, since it was anything but. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:00 AM And the rest of the story...two serious mistakes were made. The south didn't believe that Lincoln could be elected, and the North didn't believe that the South would leave the union if he did get elected. Both were very wrong. Lincoln couldn't deal directly with J. Davis, he was a rebel, leading an unlawful rebellion. Another major mistake on the part of the South, when the war broke out the South had ONE iron foundry,Tredegar Iron works and that was in Richmond, just a few miles from the Union line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 23 Jul 10 - 08:50 AM Ok, let's get down to brass tacks here...the main reason the war to resist northern aggression went on so long is simple. Robert E. Lee was the cause of all that blood shed. If he had been on the side of the union, that war wouldn't have lasted a month. He is arguably the second greatest military leader in history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 08:28 AM Nah, Kent... This is the reality... Redneck reality... It ain't all that difficult to figure out the South's problems is ya' understand history... I took both semesters of Dr. Rogers (head of VCU's history department) "History of the South" when I was in college and I have lived and worked most of my life in the South... I see it daily... I'll see it again in a hour or so when I stop at Valley Exxon fir my newspaper... I mean, where I live could be the epicenter of Redneck Nation... This ain't bigotry or prejudice... Just observation coupled with a knowledge of American history, as opposed to American Mythology... Just the way things are here... People ain't got enough real education to hold them so they run on emotion... They hate the governemnt... They hate black people... They hate educated people... But, hey... The love TV wrestling, NASCAR, tatoos (the more the better)... They love bigass wheels and tires on their trucks which make their trucks unstable endangerin' everyone on the road... They love tobacco... I mean, let's get real hear... We have some very dumbed down white peopole in the South and guess what... They are "proud" of it and fir the record they want everyone to know two things: 1. "we want out country back" and... 2. hope the 88 car wins on Sunday B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:55 PM If I understand you correctly, Messrs. Bobert, Greg F., Donuel, and mousethief, your thoughts on the ***** and ********** people could be summarized as follows: "A lot of folk don't understand the resentment that is still very much part of the mindset of a lot of ****** even today.... It is hatred... It has been passed down from generation to generation and generally shows up as hatred ...******* have been in denial for over a century and a half. Way past time to get over it...****** doesn't give a danged about education so that lots of ***** folks have no real job skills...They're a net money drain on the Federal government...I'm sure there are good people... But they are in the minority and seem helpless to change things...I've read where child-bearing-aged ***** women who needed kids to help run the farms hooked up with some real snaggle-tooth (think lower end of the gene pool) in order to get pregnant..." Isn't that a fair description of ****** people? It's not bigotry or prejudice, but the simple unvarnished truth about those *****, right? Your description of ****** seems oddly familiar. Now where have I heard people use that sort of language to describe those who are different from them? It was so long ago now...forty years perhaps....and it seems there were palmetto trees... Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:29 PM There are alot of good people, mouser, who probably are as disgusted by the majorities in their respective states... Might of fact, I know alot of Southerners who are embarassed by their fellow Southerners... POne thing that did occur during the Civil War (which it wasn't) was that the most educated and most enlightened Southerners were killed or maimed in the war... That left the South without a rudder... And it hasn't found one yet... I've read where child bearing aged Southern women who nneded kids to help run the farms hooked up with some real snaggle-ttoth (think lower end of the gene pool) in order to get pregnant... This si somethin' that isn't often talked about, especially in the South but if you get beyond American Mythology that is taught in schools this was reality in the post-war South... The war wipeed out the South's best and brightest and... ...it's still suffering from that today... As fir Lincoln being blood thirsty??? Nah, just not that great at that point in his life... The Civil War could have been avaioded... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM Never miss a chance to insult the South, eh? No progress ever a cause for celebration, no gain ever noted, no credit ever due, no sin forgiven, no fault forgotten. A smirk and a dig for every occasion. They're a net money drain on the Federal government, and yet hate the idea of government spending. They consistently vote for reactionary idiots on both state and national level. I don't have a whole lot of time for the region, no. Nothing about the Civil War. It's about NOW. I'm sure there are good people there. But they are in the minority and seem helpless to change things. I'd be happy for all red states to walk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Donuel Date: 22 Jul 10 - 02:37 PM Lincoln as a man is much less a myth when compared to George Washington. Perhaps you need to be an expert on the Civil war but most people know at least enough to realize that Lincoln was neither blood thirsty or slow to end the 6 year war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM Actaully, Lincoln could have sent Jefferson Davis a letter telling Davis of his timetable for removing troops and federal agents from the South and that would have avioded the War... And like I've said before, hey, if the South wants out then I'd say, "Don't let the door hit ya' on the way out"... The South gets way more back in federal revenues than it generates... The South is the obesity capital of the country and with that means even more federal dollars going to Medicare and Medicaid... The South, with the exception of a few population centers, doesn't give a danged about education so the lots of it's folks have no real job skills... Face it, the South has been a drain on the US going back a long, long time... And I live here... Hey, if the South pulls out then I'll sell my farm and move to Maryland... BTW, they can have West Virginia this time 'cause most folks in Wes Ginny fit in better with Redneck Nation anyway... Might of fact they can have several mid-western states taht are purdy eat up ignorant, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:56 AM ...the country breakin' apart and hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result... You need to take that up with John Randolph of Roanoke, Calhoun, Stephens, Davis and the rest of thate lot, Bobert. Abe had precious little to do with it, relatively speaking. He managed very well with what was handed to him. Never miss a chance to insult the North, eh Kent? No progress ever a cause for celebration, no gain ever noted, no credit ever due, no sin forgiven, no fault forgotten."The South" has been in denial for over a century and a half. Way past time to get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:27 AM Yeah, 20/20 hindsight, it would have been better to let the CSA walk... I mean, lets get real here... Given a hundred years of Jim Crow, which was pure terror for black folks living in the South, and given the resentments from not only the human toll of the war coupled with the humilitating 12 year occupation, yeah, it would have been better to let the CSA walk... Lotta folk don't understand the resentment that is still very part of the mindset of alot of Southerners even today.... It is hatred... It has been passed down from generation to generation and generally shows up as hatred of the federal government... Yeah, it is terribly ignorant and misguided but on the other hand it is also hypocritical... Let me explain... I was a socail worker in Richmond, Va, for some 15 years and I saw alot of folks who hated the federal government on one hand but had their hands out for any federal programs they might be elegible for... That is still very much part of the Southern culture... Look at Bobby Jindal... He's mad as aHell at the feds but wants them to spend everyone's money risking dredging sand to build barrier islands... There's a reason why the feds aren't jumpin' at Jingal's demands and that is that if they use the sand (which is limited) and build the islands and then another Katrina comes along and takes the sand out into the Gulf then they have lost theor supply of available sand.... Yet Jingal is playin' the perfect victim?angry demander that I have seen in Southerners all my life... BTW, I am not speakin' as some outsider as I grew up here in Virginia and other than 20 years living just inside Wes Ginny (among folks with confederate flags on the trucks) I have spent my whole life here so I kinda seen and figured these folks out... (But Bobert, does this mena you support slavery???) Dumb argument... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:33 AM Never miss a chance to insult the South, eh? No progress ever a cause for celebration, no gain ever noted, no credit ever due, no sin forgiven, no fault forgotten. A smirk and a dig for every occasion. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:02 AM As much as I appreciate some of the RESULTS of Lincoln's Presidency, I wonder if a truly great president couldn't have gotten the same results with less bloodshed, and without stirring up a century of resentment and backlash. It seems very unlikely. I don't think the country could have avoided the slave thing erupting into war at some point -- unless the Union simply let the slave states walk, which I think a case could be made for. I know I'd be happier now if they were their own racist little enclave. Oh wait, they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:41 PM Yea!!! Bobert and I agree on something!!! As I explained, "Party of Lincoln" was NOT the title I intended. As much as I appreciate some of the RESULTS of Lincoln's Presidency, I wonder if a truly great president couldn't have gotten the same results with less bloodshed, and without stirring up a century of resentment and backlash. That backlash was still strong when I lived in South Carolina in the 1960s. The success of people such as Allen West, Charles Lollar, and Tim Scott shows the progress the South has made in the last 40 years. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Bobert Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:15 PM What I really don't understand is this love for Lincoln... What, presiding over the country breakin' apart and hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of it make Lincoln this great president??? I don't get it??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:02 PM Kendall, If by "working man", you mean "slave", and if by "land owner", you mean "slave owner", then your understanding is correct. Otherwise, if you give those terms their usual meanings, your understanding is not correct. In the 1850s, in the United States, plenty of land was available for settlement. The population density was low. There was no need to free the working man (except for slaves) from the clutches of land owners, whether greedy or otherwise. The working man was likely to be a landowner himself or, if not, could become one. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841 However, I agree with you that the title of this thread is not ideal. You may have noticed that the title of my first post is "Southerners and Republicans". That was supposed to be the title of the thread. "Party of Lincoln" was, I thought, edited out before I posted. Obviously I did something wrong. I do not know how to change it now. Sorry. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: mousethief Date: 21 Jul 10 - 04:31 PM Awesome bumper sticker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 21 Jul 10 - 03:59 PM I agree. Perfect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Donuel Date: 21 Jul 10 - 12:04 PM Greg, Its my Party... great post! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: GUEST,Riginslinger Date: 21 Jul 10 - 07:44 AM ...republican party is a spin off from the the Whigs, and it was created to free the working man from the clutches of the greedy land owner. What happened?... The Whigs couldn't take a position on slavery, just like the Democrats and the Republicans can't take a position on immigration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jul 10 - 07:10 AM Best bumper sticker I've seen in a long while has a picture of Old Abe, with the words "Its my Party, and I'll cry if I want to". The clowns that go on about the present Republican Party as "The Party Of Lincoln" and/or "The Party of Teddy Roosevelt" simply show how abysmally ignorant they are of what either man stood for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: kendall Date: 21 Jul 10 - 06:10 AM As I understand it, the republican party is a spin off from the the Whigs, and it was created to free the working man from the clutches of the greedy land owner. What happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:47 PM Hmmm. I don't see the problem, as shown in those videos. Their views are not the same as mine but they are not promoting or instigating hatred or violence. Differences of opinion in themselves are not scary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:42 PM Hello, Alice, When I growing up in South Carolina, government enforced segregation. Seems to me we've come a long way. I imagine Lincoln would be most proud...but I guess there's no day so bright that someone can't find a shadow. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln From: Alice Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:20 PM Lincoln must be spinning in his grave. |
|
Subject: BS: Southerners and Republicans From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Jul 10 - 11:06 PM Some interesting candidates this year: Allen West, Florida, 22nd Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEGXylIGMA0 Charles Lollar, Maryland, 5th Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5jb3Ov7SUM Tim Scott, South Carolina, 1st Congressional District http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1maoCWNTRk&feature=related Kent |
