Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I come to believe Jim Crow and the overall racial animosity in the 20th century is quite possibly the result of forcing the losers of the war to accept social change they were not ready for.
An example of slavery running its course without a war not lingering animosity, is Cuba and Brazil. It's likely the South would have ran the same path.
Did Radical Reconstruction cause the enactment of the Jim Crow laws, or merely delay them? Are you arguing that left to their own devices in the immediate aftermath of the war, the South would have constructed some system that wasn't designed to suppress the rights of the newly freed slaves and keep them in an inferior status?
Just curious. Why is it that a state will take great pride in their citizens who become famous for good things, but accept none of the shame for their citizens who are infamous?
Maybe because social settings help shape someone's good aspects. The setting is unlikely to cause deep mental illness.
Did Radical Reconstruction cause the enactment of the Jim Crow laws, or merely delay them? Are you arguing that left to their own devices in the immediate aftermath of the war, the South would have constructed some system that wasn't designed to suppress the rights of the newly freed slaves and keep them in an inferior status?
They certainly opposed giving them equal rights. Speaking specifically of South Carolina. But there were whites and free blacks who tried to do what they could, and at great personal risk. I think the good people were there but were just outnumbered.
And certainly there was plenty of slavery in New York where the ships docked in the 1700's. Black slaves and indentured servants from Ireland. Both equally abused.
Abraham Lincoln was, by far, the WORST President in American history. His megalomania caused the death of 750,000 Americans, and the maiming of countless more. Slavery would have ended peacefully here, just as it did everywhere else in the world, because the new economics made slavery unfeasible. Why pay someone enough to survive, when you can switch to hiring illegals, bored housewives, and people supported by others--and pay them virtually nothing?
According to Lincoln's own letters, he didn't start the war to end slavery--it was to "preserve the union" (simultaneously making the federal government, in defiance of our Constitution, omnipotent over the States--and setting it on the path of totalitarian control over citizens). https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...es/greeley.htm
So basically, Lincoln started a catastrophic civil war, in order to force half of the states to remain in a union they had once joined for mutual benefit. Even with the victors writing the history, it strikes me as beyond ludicrous that any state should not be free to leave the union they joined voluntarily. What it was, was a war of federalism versus State's Rights, and let's not forget that nation was founded on the idea of State's Rights being far more powerful, while the federal government (which our Founding Fathers knew was a huge threat to a free nation) was small and had few duties (and less tax revenue).
By fighting a war to overthrow State's Rights and impose federalism, Lincoln basically made sure that today's American working class is nothing more than a slave to a gigantic and all-powerful federal government (the level that provides virtually none of the public services we pay taxes for). Washington now confiscates a huge portion of each worker's income, before the worker even sees his own paycheck--when the Founding Fathers specifically formed the laws to forbid any income tax, and certainly never could have imagined the idea of "payroll withholding," which skyrocketed Washington's bite into every worker's income. When someone "owns" the fruits of your labor (and has the power to take whatever he wants of it), he owns you--you are a slave.
He could have started by negotiating with the remaining 4 States.
The remaining four states were still in the Union. The Federal government should not make a practice of negotiating the secession of any state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The flaw in your argument is that Lincoln doesn't have to negotiate with the Confederacy per se.
Lincoln could have negotiated with each individual State, starting with South Carolina, since that was the most urgent.
So should Lincoln have negotiated with the remaining four, or the first seven, starting with South Carolina? I don't follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Sometimes in politics you have to eat crow. If Lincoln had to sell out his platform to avoid war, then that's what he should have done. He was free to "spin" it anyway he wanted to make it look good to his power base.
You mean Lincoln's insistence that the Union remain inviolate and together?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Lincoln had many resources at his disposal to effect a peaceful resolution. He could have enlisted the aid of Britain and France, for example, to put economic pressure on the Southern States.
Who would buy cotton from the South? No one. If the South has no market for cotton, then slavery is pretty much pointless.
First there was no rapid method of communication in those days. Second nations generally do what's in their interests, except for some modern U.S. presidents who see it important to be generous to the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Lincoln could have used other methods, like financial incentives to get Southern States to forego slavery on a time-table that would be amenable to all (except the Slaves, of course).
Those are just a couple of things Lincoln could have done.
He tried. The South wanted out. They didn't want negotiations. They were aware that the power balance was tipping against them and that their feudal economy was no match for the North, even with Virginia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
He could have offered whatever was politically necessary.
I.e. surrender?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And yet Napoleon III was willing to mediate. Lincoln could have seized upon that. Lincoln could have also negotiated with Britain and France, and if that meant foregoing or repealing the Monroe Doctrine, then that is what Lincoln should have done.
And basically squander the U.S.'s sovereignty? Well recent presidents have tried that with the U.N. It didn't end well for their parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's because Lincoln failed to negotiate with Britain and France.
About what? They weren't attacking us. As far as honoring the blockade, countries generally act in their own interests. That is one of the reasons that economic sanctions almost always fail.
I never got the point of Lincoln's strategy. He's credited to "saving the union" yet he burns down cities, destroys infrastructure, and otherwise creates a culture of animosity for the next hundred years. What good was that supposed to do? That's like if California secedes and we burn it down, destroy their industry and agriculture ruining any kind of economic value to the place just for the sake of not updating the maps.
What did Lincoln exactly want with a ruined south?
And of course to secure reelection Nevada was rushed into statehood despite not meeting the requirements of statehood just a few days before the 1864 election.
Then you didn't look. I'll start with the gushing about Hitler's supposed 'economic miracle'. If you claim that's not praise, you either haven't the foggiest idea what the word means, or you're furiously dissembling (that's as polite as I'm willing to be).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickerman
"People then ask how and they want a simple answer. But there isn't a simple answer it is a very involved answer that would require studying how he did it. But it is never mentioned. Why?"
He said nothing of how he did it correctly or how it was just. He ask why we don't discuss it or its process. Historically, there were many Americans and English that though he was an political and economic mastermind. One of the most recent to be embarrassed by supporting early Hitler was the British Royal family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
LOL... Thomas DiLorenzo? What, couldn't find any David Irving quotes about Lincoln? Stop embarrassing yourself.
It is well known that Hitler was a fan of Mr. Lincoln. If you know anything about the two, you would clearly not be so dumbfounded by this. Many of the higher NAZI party members started from a rural back ground, much like Lincoln. This was very important as both stressed the importance of self sufficiency and self reliance. Lincoln stressed the importance of national banks, national institutions, and roads. Mr. Hitler created many national institutions and had the autobahn built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
The part where Germany seized or invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, the USSR, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, among others - then whined about what a victim it was when the western Allies intervened. Let's start there.
Why start in medias res? Your leaving out such good history. Like many Historians will tell you, World War 2 started 11-11-18. Also, America really had some dirt stains when it comes to World War 2, that is unless you have an political education of the War. You politicos act like world war 2 is the first time an European country was invaded or a country whined about something being unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
And the trend continues - the Lincoln-loathers just can't resist portraying the Third Reich as victims of big bad America. Again, I am hardly surprised...
Now you are just doing to me what you did to nickerman.
First, I said I was a supporter of Lincoln. I went as far as to say I shared his morals and even called his crimes against our democratic values and laws justifiable.
Second, yes there were. I know you don't like facts or history but the Allies committed countless war crimes before we even knew, or cared, about the Nazi's atrocities.
Third, I live where Lincoln spent most his life. I take my information from local records and local historians.
Stop painting good guys and bad guys, this is history section, not the political section. We realize everyone has dirt on their hands.
Abraham Lincoln was, by far, the WORST President in American history. His megalomania caused the death of 750,000 Americans, and the maiming of countless more. Slavery would have ended peacefully here, just as it did everywhere else in the world, because the new economics made slavery unfeasible. Why pay someone enough to survive, when you can switch to hiring illegals, bored housewives, and people supported by others--and pay them virtually nothing?
This has been gone over often in this thread. Slavery was not dying. If it were there would have been mass famine among released slaves. There wasn't. Thus they were earning a significant economic profit for their owners; enough that the slaves were going for some good prices at auctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
According to Lincoln's own letters, he didn't start the war to end slavery--it was to "preserve the union" (simultaneously making the federal government, in defiance of our Constitution, omnipotent over the States--and setting it on the path of totalitarian control over citizens). https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...es/greeley.htm
Article VI of the Constitution says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thus the Federal government was supreme over the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
So basically, Lincoln started a catastrophic civil war, in order to force half of the states to remain in a union they had once joined for mutual benefit. Even with the victors writing the history, it strikes me as beyond ludicrous that any state should not be free to leave the union they joined voluntarily. What it was, was a war of federalism versus State's Rights, and let's not forget that nation was founded on the idea of State's Rights being far more powerful, while the federal government (which our Founding Fathers knew was a huge threat to a free nation) was small and had few duties (and less tax revenue).
The Constitution has detailed provisions for admission of states and provisions against parts of states being hived off to make new states without their consent. There are no provisions setting out a secession mechanism. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius or "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other."
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
By fighting a war to overthrow State's Rights and impose federalism, Lincoln basically made sure that today's American working class is nothing more than a slave to a gigantic and all-powerful federal government (the level that provides virtually none of the public services we pay taxes for). Washington now confiscates a huge portion of each worker's income, before the worker even sees his own paycheck--when the Founding Fathers specifically formed the laws to forbid any income tax, and certainly never could have imagined the idea of "payroll withholding," which skyrocketed Washington's bite into every worker's income. When someone "owns" the fruits of your labor (and has the power to take whatever he wants of it), he owns you--you are a slave.
Remember the Constitution had an amending formula. It was used to create the income tax which you decry. Read some mainstream books. They are good.
I never got the point of Lincoln's strategy. He's credited to "saving the union" yet he burns down cities, destroys infrastructure, and otherwise creates a culture of animosity for the next hundred years. What good was that supposed to do? That's like if California secedes and we burn it down, destroy their industry and agriculture ruining any kind of economic value to the place just for the sake of not updating the maps.
You can't have an "easy come easy go" system. Take Texas as an example. It gained admission in 1846, on its petition as a previously independent republic. Its debts are assumed by the U.S. government. They, financially cleaned up it secedes? There's a disconnect there. It's like a baseball game walking out in the fifth inning when ahead and declaring the game a victory for league statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
And of course to secure reelection Nevada was rushed into statehood despite not meeting the requirements of statehood just a few days before the 1864 election.
Lincoln was easily reelected. Even Maryland voted Republican.
I come to believe Jim Crow and the overall racial animosity in the 20th century is quite possibly the result of forcing the losers of the war to accept social change they were not ready for.
An example of slavery running its course without a war not lingering animosity, is Cuba and Brazil. It's likely the South would have ran the same path.
Well I'm Cuban myself, and while I'm not extremely knowledgable of the racial social situations there, and being white I can't speak for the experiences of black Cubans, but Cuba while still upholding values of white supremacy, did not have the extent of racial culture that the southern US had. Blacks in Cuba post-slavery were still looked down upon by racist whites, but not to the extreme dehumanising way that they were in the US deep South. And Cuba did have segregation to an extent, you can ask my aunt who is now in her 60s about that, but nothing to the extent that the US had. While no doubt if the confederacy had succeeded in remaining its own country, that slavery would have already been abolished by now, I highly doubt racial relationships would be all right. When comparing race relations with Cuba and the US south, the fact that Cuba has a decent number of biracial people shows more relaxed race relations. Historically in Cuba, its been a bit taboo for "pure" whites and "pure" blacks to marry, but it carried more of just a stigma, compared to in the Deep South where black men would be hung for even being accused of flirting with white women.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
