Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj
Just wondering what people might have to say about this.
Both would say they tried to preserve their union. Both employed military might to do so and killed lots of their own citizens.
ML/NJ
Umm.. one can’t speak without a four hour rant and they other gave the
Gettysburg Address in less than an hour? Jus’ saying.
Also...There is the question of the massive growth of federal power after the Civil War. Our nation was never again referred to as “The United States **are** ....”. It became, “The United States **is**...”
What were those draft riots in NYC about do you think?
ML/NJ
What most here don’t want to dig into is the fact that Lincoln’s motives were not as pure as the driven snow. He cared nothing for freeing slaves. I suspect that northern interests were interested in holding the south as a sort of colony which could provide cheap labor and resources for their industrial system as well as a market for its products. The government likely saw secession as a loss of an enormous tax base.
...but the northerners got the advantages of cheap labor. As always with war, a bunch of northern businessmen made a bunch of money while a bunch of people died.
The only part of your statement I disagree with is that I think Lincoln was interested in freeing the slaves.....and deporting them.
And the lie is still perpetuated, to this very day, by none other than .gov!
I wonder who you think was the "G-d fearing leader of the free world"? You must have just escaped from a government school! (There was no "free world" in the 1860s and few outside of the Northern United States exhibited ANY respect for Lincoln whatsoever.)
I'm assuming that you thin Qaddafi is the one who is the "insane radical dictator," so maybe you'll share with us two or three manifestations of this insanity from the past decade or so?
ML/NJ
Why don't you start your own thread and ask it then?
ML/NJ
No, those questions are not fatuous. But there are others. For discussion sake, let's say Lincoln saw fit to allow the southern states to secede, and the Confederacy become it's own nation. There could then be the possibility that the lessened Union could then vote for the repeal of that portion of the Kansas/Nebraska act that repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and outlaw the issue of slavery in those states. They could also pass a law that slavery would not be allowed in any further territories or states.
What then would the South do? If they continued with slavery in their initial, few states, it would begin a fairly increasing death cycle. Their only out would be westward expansion, or expansion elsewhere (Mexico, Cuba...). But expansion within what's now the continental US would likely be opposed by a more solidified Union. Would that then make the war just as inevitable as it was in 1860?
All is conjecture. Who knows how history would have unfolded. But the issue of slavery was a cancer within this country from before its beginning. Is it possible it could have been cut out without a major upheaval of blood? To me, that's the major question.
Actually, I think he could spend a month trying and never catch a clue.
I'm sure you can supply us all with a list of the British forts or other installations that were tolerated here after July 4, 1776.
ML/NJ
Or it reflects the fact that most people have better things to do than answer questions as stupid as this one is?
ML/NJ
Slavery was widely accepted throughout the world prior to the Eighteenth Century. It was in 1776 that the British High Court ruled that “slaves cannot breath English air, for the moment that they do, they are free men.” Some historians claim that it was this action, and its implications for England’s colonies, that lead the Southern colonies to find common cause with mercantile New England. (New York was notably tepid in embracing the Revolution.) In other words, the American Revolution had as much to do with perserving slavery as the principles of representative government.
It would be interesting to have a reasonable, objective discussion on the issue of slavery’s affect on the US, but without the hyperbole and agenda driven absurdity of the living confederacy. So, it’s not going to happen soon...
Incredible. There was not a single accurate statement in that entire paragraph. Usually you all manage to have at least one, even by accident. I think that qualifies you for entry in the League of the South Hall of Fame.
Henry Clay’s nephew, an abolitionist, criticized slavery on purely economic terms. He claimed that slavery prevented the economic development of the South. The Civil War certainly did not help.
It was cheaper for a capitalist in the South to invest in slaves than machinery and the availibility of slaves (or illegal immigrants today) depressed wages at the low end of the pay scale.
Well, I’m certainly no knee-jerk fan of the falsely sainted Mr. Lincoln, nor the outcome of the war: some of our worst Amendments; the beginning of the rise of the Federal Leviathan we see before us now; the unneccesary cruelty of the North, both before and after the surrender.
That those Americans who believe and feel this way are dismissed here on FR says more of the dismissers than the dismissed.
I think the person who started this thread has asked a legitimate question.
Hmm, a trick question for sure.
One has his own Caesar-like temple in DC and the other doesn’t?
I think the person who started this thread has asked a legitimate question.
the question is reprehensible and offensive to conservatives and should have no place at FreeRepublic.
Yes, damn that 13th Amendment anyway. </sarcasm>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.