Posted on 12/27/2002 6:50:38 AM PST by yankeedame
There's a statue to Mahatma Gandhi in Union Square - and he has a much more tenuous link than Calhoun.
LOL. Fair enough - I'll give you the above. Nevertheless, Lincoln's ties to Richmond are far stronger than Calhoun's to NYC; and the statue is to commemorate an actual event.
'Cuz the South was willing to destroy the nation itself to perpetuate the old iniquity.
Why did the "followers of Christ" in the north keep their slaves after those in the South were freed? It didn't really have anything to do with following Christ, did it?
When, if ever, do you think slavery would have been eliminated in the Confederacy?
The Virginia General Assembly was debating that matter when news came of shots fired at Fort Sumter(sp?). Slavery would have been eliminated throughout the nation within decades for the most irresistable reason of all: economics. With the advent of the industrial revolution, it was simply becoming unprofitable.
I agree. This of course opens up another "what if" scenario. What if the Southern states hadn't been pushed into succession?
What do you think the status of blacks would be in the Confederacy today?
Better.
Can you explain? I'm not calling you a liar. I can imagine some scanarios that would have this result. I'm honestly curious how you think they'd be better off. If you can answer this question plausibly, it goes a long way towards killing the charge of being motivated by racism.
How do you think the CSA and USA would have fared through the end of the 19th and through the 20th Century as compared to how the USA really fared?
Several interesting books have been written on that subject. I recommend "If the South Had Won the Civil War" by McKinley Cantor (sp? - it's been many years.) Consensus seems to be that the Russians would still be in Alaska (which may be preferable to the Communists in Berkeley).
Of course if the Russians had held Alaska, any number of other things may have changed that could have prevented communists in Moscow, as well. This sort of speculation is always fun. I guess my main reason for asking this question is that the South has made such critical contributions to American war efforts in the 20th Century that I'm left wondering if the North or the South would have been as strong apart as they've both been together. Could either alone, for example, have pulled of a Manhattan Project or put a man on the Moon?
Was the sin slavery, or trying to destroy the nation? This convenient changing of condemnation has the appearance, and sound, of blind hatred.
Footnote: The South did not bring war on the North; it was the other way around. The South merely wanted to leave the North alone.
A strong argument against protective tariffs was that they would bring in less money than a lower "tariff for revenue only." The opponents of protection often argued that their policies would bring in more money. And it's not clear how much money we are talking about. Tariffs never brought in as much money as the income tax.
Many in early 19th century America thought that the money tariffs brought in could have been used to build roads and canals. This belief carried over into the practices of conservative, limited government Republican Presidents in the 20th century. But up until Wilson and FDR, the effect of tariffs and internal improvements doesn't seem to have been more power for Washington. For New York or Chicago, maybe, but not so much for Washington.
There was a tussle in the capital everytime tariffs were up for a vote, but the charge against the government at the time was that the country was really being run by Wall Street. It was low tariff men, including many Southerners, who expanded the power of the federal government the most in the 20th century.
The South was certainly within its rights opposing tariffs and internal improvements in Congress, but looking back, it might have been better for them to build those roads and canals, either on their own through local taxes or through federal taxation. Forgoing internal development to remain an underdeveloped provider of raw materials for foreign industry doesn't seem to be the wisest choice
WP basically said that the final word on the status of the Confederate States was decided by the Supreme Court.
I proffered Dred Scott as an example of how the Supreme Court can be wrong.
He responded by saying that although Dred was wrong, the anti-Confederate decision was good law.
In reality, the Constitution does not explicitly deny people the right to self-determination, nor does it explicitly guarantee a right to murder children.
So it's best that the Supreme Court not make decisions on matters that are exterior or anterior to its realm of competence.
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that Prussia lost the Franco-Prussian War...... Explain yourself......wideawake
Maybe Mr. DumpedTea was referring to Bismark's last battle against the young and foolish Wilhelm II.
Or maybe he was referring to the Bismark-Virchow "Sausage Duel":
Otto von Bismarck, enraged by the famous German pathologist Rudolf Virchow's constant criticism in the Bundestag, one day ordered his seconds to arrange a duel. Virchow consented, with a small stipulation:
"As the challenged party, I have the choice of weapons," he explained, "and I choose these two large sausages... One," he continued, "is infected with deadly trichina. The other is perfectly sound. Let His Excellency decide which he wishes to eat, and I shall eat the other."
The Iron Chancellor, informed of the coice of weapons, called the duel off.
Bismarck's Two Defeats:
Look, I don't think Lincoln was the Messiah or the Antichrist--the truth, as often happens, lies in the middle. I don't agree with many of the things he did. I think he had a single, overriding goal--the preservation of the Union--and he wasn't going to let inconvenient little things like state's rights and the Constitution get in his way. (Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I can sympathize even if I think he handled it wrong.) And, his reputation as some sort of anti-slavery crusader is wrongly earned--the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in occupied CSA territories, and was obviously largely a political move to (a) get the abolitionists off his back, (b) encourage free blacks to join the cause, and (c) further disrupt the Southern economy by encouraging slaves to escape North to freedom.
I'll grant him his due as the man that preserved the Union. But I sure won't elevate him to mythical status as some sort of demigod. Lincoln was a man. Men make mistakes. He sure made his share.
The question really is whether or not Richmond -deserves- a statue of Lincoln.
You just have to stick that knife in there one more time, don't you Walt?
}:-)4
With a keen nose for hypocrisy.
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.