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.
A lot has been said and argued about the south and the north, slavery or not. I am a second generation American, so what knowledge I have comes from learning, study, debates, and yes, finding out that information I had was wrong, and learning from someone else with more knowledge on the subject.
Lincoln who in Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, against Stephen Douglas, said the following.
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."
It's pretty much understood by anybody that does much research that Abraham Lincoln had some pretty racist views. The ending of slavery was a political means to an end. The Abolitionist Movement held considerable political sway within the Republican Party. Whatever Lincolns personal views were the political realities motivated him to put an end to slavery. After all one of the primary drivers in the creation of the Republican Party was the abolition of slavery.
Did the South miss the train of industrialization back then?
What always amazes me is how people back then obviously avoided dealing with all the moral and religious aspects of slavery. Even later on in all the other colonies, same thing... I mean, those Southerners, Brits, French etc. were modern humans just like us, they must have known and felt that slaves were unhappy and that something was wrong
I mean, gosh, Neuling, perhaps it just wasn't so clear cut and dried, reckon? It is one thing to have the luxury of examining the question in the comfort of your living room today. It is another to have actually had to deal with it in the human day and age it existed.
But I betcha had YOU been there, you would have solved the problem for everyone, right? The morality and the economics and the logicstics and the whole bit.
Funny (not haha funny, but, really, inane) how those who are so ****-sure they know just how our ancestors were faulty and sinful, cannot "solve" the moral problems of today. But dammed if the same would not have been the ones to take care of those of yesterday!
One of my heroes, Robert E. Lee, once dryly commented, in reply to journalists and newspapers in the South were critiszing Confederate military operations and strategy, remarked along the lines of:
"It is too bad all our worst generals are leading armies, while are our best generals are editing newspapers."
Today - in this realm -- it might be updated to say: The Good Lord must have just made a mistake in that those with all the answers and solutions are always born several generations later.
I mean, gosh, Neuling, perhaps it just wasn't so clear cut and dried, perhaps? It is one thing to have the luxury of examining the question in the comfort of your living room today. It is another to have actually had to deal with it.
But I betcha had YOU been there, you would have solved the problem for everyone, right? The morality and the economics and the logicstics and the whole bit.
Funny (not haha funny, but, really, inane) how those who are so sure they know just how our ancestors were faulty, cannot "solve" the problems of today. Usually, the same genre just make them worse.
It's not that complicated. Historically Americans have NEVER let morality get in the way of making a profit until the hypocrisy gets to the point this "All Men Are Created Equal" ethos finally gives a group of people the courage to act. The economic considerations outweighed all others for the proponents of slavery. For others they simply didn't give enough of a damn and therefore slavery was something they could compromise on, which is basically what they did for the first 80 or years of our country's history.
I found this little gem of a quotation by James Madison during the debate in defense of his Virginia Plan (Richard Beeman's "Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution"Random House, page 183.):
"The principle division of interests within the country, [Madison] observed, would never "lie between the large and small states." Rather, "it lay between the Northern and Southern" and arose principally, "from the effects of their having or not having slaves."
This from a Framer who throughout the Constitutional Convention was adamantly oppose to "state's rights" much less the concept of state sovereignty.
Yup, I want you to leave. You and SC, MS, TX and all the rest of you southern traitors. Start a movement and go for it. I'll join one in the north to help in your cause so you can get out of the USA. You're a bunch of dis-loyal traitor worshippers.
Whew! Getting a little upset, are we? Maybe because you are/have been confronted with historical facts you don't like?
LMAO I really get a kick out of that bolded line. What a brilliant rejoinder!
Just a word to the wise, though? Your hatred of the South and our history is obvious (but really, who cares?...when it comes right down to it)
Aren't you capable of discussing and debating within the realms of respectful and civil discourse without resorting to juvenile ranting and raving...?
What is the import of Lincoln name not appearing on the ballot of Southern states? A lost chance not to vote for him?
Lincoln's name did not appear on the ballots in the Southern states because there was no electors (operative terms here) "pledged/promised" to Lincoln in the said states.
Anybody who knows anything about the electoral system -- which we have today -- would know this. Or should. Right, Ovcatto? Hmmmm
People do not vote directly for the president of the country. They vote for representatives who they think will best represent their choice to, in turn, vote for the president.
And in that time, there were no electors pledged to Lincoln in the Lower South states (nor some of the Upper South states). Thus, his name did not appear on the ballot under the heading of (look at it next time you vote) "electors to _______"
Any person in any Southern state could have written in Lincoln, had they wanted to vote for him. This was not any evil censorship of voting rights. Hell, far as that goes, I wonder if Breckenridge' name appeared on the ballots in Massachussets?
I mean, gosh, Neuling, perhaps it just wasn't so clear cut and dried, reckon? It is one thing to have the luxury of examining the question in the comfort of your living room today. It is another to have actually had to deal with it in the human day and age it existed.
But I betcha had YOU been there, you would have solved the problem for everyone, right? The morality and the economics and the logicstics and the whole bit.
Funny (not haha funny, but, really, inane) how those who are so ****-sure they know just how our ancestors were faulty and sinful, cannot "solve" the moral problems of today. But dammed if the same would not have been the ones to take care of those of yesterday!
One of my heroes, Robert E. Lee, once dryly commented, in reply to journalists and newspapers in the South were critiszing Confederate military operations and strategy, remarked along the lines of:
"It is too bad all our worst generals are leading armies, while are our best generals are editing newspapers."
Today - in this realm -- it might be updated to say: The Good Lord must have just made a mistake in that those with all the answers and solutions are always born several generations later.
Very well said!!!
I am very sorry, however, that your words of wisdom have been wasted on the dumba** *******s posting on this thread.
I, however, am very appreciative of what you have said. Keep up the good work!
Lincoln's name did not appear on the ballots in the Southern states because there was no electors (operative terms here) "pledged/promised" to Lincoln in the said states.
Tex, when you are ready to tell me something I don't know... I'll be waiting.
The question wasn't why Lincoln's name wasn't on the ballot, but why it would have mattered?
To use your explanation to restate the obvious.
Lincoln's name was not on the ballot in the south because no one wanted to stand as an elector for his candidacy.
So stating that the South, in effect, was unduly disenfranchised because Lincoln wasn't on the ballot is a bit of an oxymoron. Unless of course the injustice was depriving the south the opportunity to vote against Lincoln.
Ya get it?
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.
