Posted on 03/17/2006 8:50:53 AM PST by High Cotton
free dixie,sw
The Republican Party position was the "free soil" position. The earliest Republicans as a whole (apart from individual abolitionists in their ranks) did not claim the right to interfere with slavery in the states which had it, but were determined not to allow slavery to expand into any new areas. Stephen Douglas (D-IL) had gotten the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed, which had opened up to slavery regions formerly closed to it by the Missouri Compromise--that was the immediate cause of the rise of the Republican Party.
Works for me.
2) "You kids think your hands are clean. You think the rednecks in the South did all the bad stuff. Well, those stupid hillbillies did do a lot of bad stuff. An awful lot. But, hey, your ancestors were no angels either. You kids are guilty as hell. Reparations are the least you can do for blacks, seeing as how involved your families were in the slave trade. Now, do your duty, step up, feel guilty, and vote to increase government spending on inner cities."
Take out the portions in bold and it still works for me. Either way, it's about time to lay the guilt and the blame where it belongs in the War. On the north.
I'm a Yank, more or less, (I grew up in a part of Illinois that had a short-lived secessionist movement -- before federal troops were sent in) and I am all in favor of teaching history as it was, and without any agenda except to teach history as it was. Otherwise, it isn't history.
One aspect of the culture divide in America is the notion that during times of slavery the North was it pure-hearted opponent, and the South its evil supporter.
The unwarranted self-righteousness seen in liberal democrats in part derives from this.
One aspect of the culture divide in America is the notion that during times of slavery the North was it pure-hearted opponent, and the South its evil supporter.
The unwarranted self-righteousness seen in liberal democrats in part derives from this.
Oh, I have plenty of information. I have gone into this program with a BA in history knowing when I relocated to go to a Northern School I would run into this...there isn't one thing he has been able to dispute when I have raised my hand and asked him to explain how the North was so perfect. These Northern professors aren't prepared for a southern Conservative who actually knows a little about history. But thanks ! :)
Like this is news or unknown except to morons.
Hey George was the man! Without George, there would have not been a United States of America! ;)
It implies that Lincoln recognized he had no fiat powers over slavery in the states that weren't in rebellion. You guys always attack Lincoln for being a dictator, then attack him for not using his dictatorial powers. For the record, three of the five loyal slave states--West Virginia, Missouri, and Maryland--ended it on their own before war's end. Furthermore, Lincoln fully supported passage of the 13th amendment, even insisting on it being included in the 1864 Republican platform. It had already passed the Senate in April, 1864 but Democrats in the House blocked it until after the November election. Once passed, Lincoln promptly signed it and it went to the states.
Mississippi, by the way, didn't ratify the 13th until 1995.
What people do understand, however, is that (1) slavery was on the decline, or had been outlawed in many northern states by 1861, and (2) an independent, slave-based South represented competition over who would control the West.
The South declared independence and lost. Trying to overcome any stigma associated with that campaign by forwarding irrelevant comparisons reveals more about themselves than they may have intended.
How come so few Northerners (presumably Republican in votes, because Lincoln won) wanted to be dragged into war over blacks/slaves (altho the real purpose for Lincoln was to "preserve the Union" - at gunpoint), then? How come the riots of New York over drafts? Doesn't sound like too many Northerners/Republicans were actually high and mighty about slavery.
There is no greater man, ever, than George Washington.
Advertisement for Runaway Rivington's New York Gazeteer September 15, 1774 The Library Company of Philadelphia
Advertisement Offering a Slave for Sale New York Weekly-Journal April 15, 1734 New-York Historical Society Advertisements for the sale of slaves offer historians a wealth of information about the physical appearance and skills of individuals. They also shed light on the survival of Africanisms in dress and body adornment and proficiencies in occupations and language(s). The woman who is described in this advertisement could only speak English. Thus she could not communicate easily with those New Yorkers, both white and black, whose primary language was Dutch.
Of course, the greatest irony is that the South really didn't lose. By maintaining a solid regional alliance, an incorporated South has controlled the US government for generations. See Reagan/ColdWar, Clinton/BJs, BushII/Iraq, etc.
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.