Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
Better than I thought.
Sorry but I don't remember posting it. I'm not all that up on Nast's drawings.
Look, I realize this is hard for you, but follow me on this. You're president of a federation of states, half of which are for slavery with the other half tolerating it in other states and even returning escaped slaves to their owners based on law. Sure, there are those totally dedicated to abolishing it, but they are radical, radical few. So radical in fact that to be one could get you killed.
Now then. Powers as great as yourself (Britain and the European monarchies) have been involved in the slave trade but phased it out by methods of compensation, although they still tolerate in many ways in their colonies and sugar plantations in the tropics.
You want to end slavery in your country. Do you do it by the sword, or the pen?
Clearly, the sword would be your choice. It was Lincoln's also. To the tune of a war so horrific, that all the war dead in the wars that your country will fight over the next 150 years and all the wars it fought prior to your war will still not equal to war dead of your five year war to end slavery.
Unfortunately, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery ending for the sake of ending slavery. It was a botched attempt for the Washington power brokers (Republicans and their big money backers, northern industrialists) to seize power. It was supposed to be a walk in the park. The first major battle was fought with civilians camped out on the hills thinking it was going to be a picnic!!! After the South routed the North in that battle, Stonewall Jackson told Jefferson Davis "Give me 10,000 troops and I'll give you Washington DC."
Davis refused and wrote in his diary that it was the greatest mistake in his life. Lincoln clearly had no idea what he had wrought.
But fine, you back him up, I don't.
Obviously the pen is preferable. But in the U.S. impossible. There were 16 slave states in the U.S., 18 free states. Since there was absolutely no interest among the slave states in ending slavery by any means, compensated or otherwise, the chance of getting an amendment through the Congress was zero. In order to get it through Consitutional convention it would have taken 38 free states. Do the math, that's 64 total states. Lincoln could add, he knew that he could not end slavery. But he could try and halt the expansion. Which is what he advocated and which is what the South saw as threatening. So they rebelled. And they chose war to further their aims. Lincoln waged the war they forced upon him.
But fine, you back him up, I don't.
Facts back up Lincoln better than I can.
Happy ThanksGiving
As Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural, "While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
The anti-war protests in the North were HUGE! They involved riots and the murder of children!
Anti war sentiment in the south took the form of whole counties and parts of states opposing the rule from Richmond. Makes draft riots pale by comparison.
Booth himself was a northern!
Having spent a fair amount of time in Richmond, Booth considered himself Southern. He was also born and raised in Maryland.
What a powerful illustration. But let me correct it. The Civil War was NOT about the "north" and the "south" compromising. They never diagreeed.
This was about power brokers in Washington (laser beam focus on Lincoln) NOT screwing this country into it's most costly war ever, a war on the scale this nation will never, ever see again, for politics.
Period. End of story.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too!
Happy ThanksGiving
Hey, fellow FReepers.
I just want to say something totally out of left field here regarding this subject, the subject of the Civil War or the War between the States - whatever you prefer.
We can't begin to comprehend that war. I just clicked off Fox News that had two black guys suing Michael Richards (yes, a racist idiot) for screaming racial epithets at them last week. They want monetary compensation. By monetary I mean measure in six figures for them and their lawyer.
We're not here because of the Civil War. I truly believe in America and Americans. The Americans that were sucking oxygen in 1860 were predominantly good people for their time. The Americans (if there still is an America) in 2360 living on this soil may look back and say "OMG...they ate other animals!!! AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!" Hindsight is 20/20 folks and I'm not judging Lincoln from my standpoint, but from his own time.
It is clear, CLEAR, by every bit of documentation available to us that Lincoln was out of touch (that's a euphemism) with this country, including urbane, cityfolk of the north. The war was so unpopular that only around 5% of those conscripted even bothered serving. This was American brother against brother folks.
Anyway, I just want to point out that however passionately we devote this topic, it can never equal the utterly sublime (READ: overwhelmingly non-human) event that took place.
This was without a doubt the most avoidable war in the history of this country. It just went the polar opposite of that.
Happy Thanksgiving to you sir!!
The 'Civil War' has always been over-simplified....and over-complicated. This was true while it was being fought, on this very thread, and will be for every argument about it in the future.
It is too easy to loose commen sense when caught up in sincere passions.
please....God bless us all.
I'm new here and someone at the beginning of this thread posted something to the effect of: Let's take off the gloves like we always do on this subject.
Guy was right. This one is a doozy. It's a doozy because it was brother vs brother, cousin vs cousin, American vs American.
I just happen to believe that the powers that made it happen did so from DC, not from a perspective of North vs South. Slavery is an utter abomination. This was just not the way to go about ending it. Lincoln was out of touch with the people.
Again, I want to reiterate. 6 million war dead in today's numbers.
Remember them this Thanksgiving.
Thank you for saying that.
You are most welcome, and appreciated here.. this subject always is a doozy..slavery is an abomination; and the 'Civil War' was never about ending it.
It remains so passionate an argument as to make people loose their minds. Many of the apparantly insane on this thread are, ordinarily, fairly rational sorts(including me...really, I mean it).
Have a safe, & rewarding Thanksgiving.
Heckuva good post, ZC.
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.