BS: Party of Lincoln

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: 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 - 10:34 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 11:24 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: mousethief
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 06:28 PM

1450? Hell, Columbus wasn't even born until 1451.

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 Trade

A 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:07 AM

"Everyone needs a dog to kick."

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:34 PM

Can't really argue with that...

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 - 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: 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~