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.
During the war, the contraband camps were set up as well as the union plantations.
Black codes were already law in northern states, segregation was just an evolution of the race war started by the union league.
You can sugar coat Lincoln's legacy all you want, but the affects of the republican party on 'freed' blacks were clear and obvious.
The emancipation proclimation had a clearly stated goal:
"In Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 1862 he said: "I have urged the colonization of the Negroes, (back to Africa), and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan (of colonization). There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks. I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro, under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable."
Also notice the mention of lesser whites, these are southerners since Lincoln thought their inbreeding with blacks had caused them to degrade. Sherman gleefully talked about killing these lesser whites.
The Morrill Tariffs were added to crush the southern economy and keep cotton in the hands of northern industrialists. That was used to instigate racial tensions in the south.
The tariff replaced the lower Tariff of 1857, which, according to Kenneth Stampp, "was possible because it did not represent a victory of one section over the other; nor did it produce a clear division between parties. Its supporters included Democrats, Republicans, and members of the American Party; representatives of northern merchants, manufacturers, and railroad interests; and spokesmen for southern farmers and planters. Opposition came largely from two economic groups: the iron manufacturers of Pennsylvania and the wool growers of New England and the West
I'm starting to wonder if the sources of all your idea aren't communist anti-American sources. Every claim you make is cherry picked and dubious.
Why don't you mention in Lincoln's last speech before he was killed he suggested black men who served in the Union should have the right to vote?
So Lincoln’s statues are among 500 being reviewed. How does that translate to the state of Illinois canceling Lincoln? There has been no decision.
Ostrich in da house!
You know Obama is definitely getting cancelled too as soon as he's no long useful, right? He was strongly against gay marriage, what a disgusting alt-right bigot who spewed hate...
Don't know why you feel the urge to defend and belong to circular firing squads but to each their own
You know Obama is definitely getting cancelled too as soon as he's no long useful, right? He was strongly against gay marriage, what a disgusting alt-right bigot who spewed hate...
Don't know why you feel the urge to defend and belong to circular firing squads but to each their own
I'm starting to wonder if the sources of all your idea aren't communist anti-American sources. Every claim you make is cherry picked and dubious.
Why don't you mention in Lincoln's last speech before he was killed he suggested black men ho served in the Union should have the right to vote?
Are you using wikipedia? This is also on Wikipedia
"If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States?... Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived.... The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union.... So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
-Charles Dickens.
The 1857 version you speak of was in response to the panic 1857. Additional tariffs were added during the war under the same name.
The confederacy had their own report on it:
"The party weight of the South, and the ability and skill of its public men, kept them at bay; whilst the people of the North-West, being like the people of the South, an agricultural people, were generally opposed to the protective tariff policy — the grand sectionalising instrumentality of the North. They were allies of the South, to defeat this policy. Hence it has been only partially, and occasionally successful. To make it complete, and to render the North omnipotent to rule the South, the division in the North must be healed. To accomplish this object, and to sectionalise the North, the agitation concerning African slavery in the South was commenced. This institution was purely sectional, belonging to the South. Antagonism to it in the North must also be sectional. The agitation would unite the South against the North, as much as it united the North against the South; but the North being the stronger section, would gain power by the agitation. Accordingly, after the overthrow of the tariff of 1828, by the resistance of South Carolina in 1833, the agitation concerning the institution of African slavery in the South was immediately commenced in the Congress of the United States. It was taken up by the Legislatures of the Northern States; and upon one pretext or another in and out of Congress, it has been pursued from that day to the fall of 1860, when it ended in the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, by a purely sectional support. The great end was at last obtained, of a united North to rule the South. The first fruit the sectional despotism thus elected produced, was the tariff lately passed by the Congress of the United States. By this tariff the protective policy is renewed in its most odious and oppressive forms, and the agricultural States are made tributaries to the manufacturing States. It has revived the system of specific duties, by which, the cheaper an article becomes, from the progress of art or the superior skill of foreign manufacturers — the higher is the relative tax it imposes. Specific duties, is the expedient of high taxation, to enforce its collection. This tariff illustrates the oppressive policy of the North towards the South, and abounds in high taxation by specific duties. It is a war on the foreign commerce of the country, in which the Southern people are chiefly interested. Exclusively an agricultural people, it is their policy, to purchase the manufactured commodities they need, in the cheapest markets. These are amongst the nations of Europe, who consume five-sixths of the agricultural productions of the South. The late tariff passed by the Congress of the United States, was designed to force the Southern people, by prohibitory duties to consume the dearer manufactured commodities of the North, instead of the cheaper commodities of European nations. What is this but robbery? Does it not take from one citizen or section and give to another? The foreign trade of the United States, has always been carried on, by our agricultural productions. Our exports, are the basis of the imports, of the United States. Upon what principle of justice or of the Constitution, have the people of the North intervened between us and our natural customers, and forced us by the use of the Federal Government — laying prohibitory duties on the production of foreign nations — to consume their productions? Shall we not have the right to deal directly with those who consume our agricultural productions and who in return can supply us with their cheaper manufactured commodities. If foreign nations can sell us freely their manufactured commodities, in consequence of their greater cheapness — can they not afford to give us more for our cotton? And if we pay less for their manufactured commodities— are we not so much the richer by the trade? The tariff alone, would have been ample cause for a separation of the Southern from the Northern The reign of sectional oppression and tyranny, anticipated by the seceding States, is fully inaugurated at Washington, by the passage of this act."
-Confederate Foreign Affairs Report
Mentioning communist propaganda makes me think you have no clue what you're talking about. Marx supported the Union and Lincoln since he opposed slavery and promoted industrialization.
There was an entire post you refused to respond to, and even then you got your information wrong.
Are you using wikipedia? This is also on Wikipedia
Mentioning communist propaganda makes me think you have no clue what you're talking about. Marx supported the Union and Lincoln since he opposed slavery and promoted industrialization.
There was an entire post you refused to respond to, and even then you got your information wrong.
I'm not talking about what Marx supported then. I'm talking about how communist today or other anti-American types promote a false US historical narrative. They'd love if the US didn't have those tariffs back then and didn't become the leading industrial country by 1890, or the US would've remained divided into two countries. That didn't happen so just bash Lincoln and Northerners.
I'm not talking about what Marx supported then. I'm talking about how communist today or other anti-American types promote a false US historical narrative. They'd love if the US didn't have those tariffs back then and didn't become the leading industrial country by 1890, or the US would've remained divided into two countries. That didn't happen so just bash Lincoln and Northerners.
Had the confederacy won there would be no banana wars, no panama canal, no Spanish American war, no empire.
And then the people could have prospered, but instead the union dominated the south through force of will setting down this country on a path of a superstate.
Had the confederacy won there would be no banana wars, no panama canal, no Spanish American war, no empire.
And then the people could have prospered, but instead the union dominated the south through force of will setting down this country on a path of a superstate.
Who knows what would've happened if the South had won. Being in a line of northerners since around or before the Civil War, I'm mostly satisfied with how it turned out until well past the 1950s
Who knows what would've happened if the South had won. Being in a line of northerners since around or before the Civil War, I'm mostly satisfied with how it turned out until well past the 1950s
His stance was it would be best they leave for their own colony voluntarily, not force them.
He didn't have the power to force them. But you're missing the point. He wanted them to leave. He didn't want any black people in this country. His opposition to slavery was not out of concern for black people. Go read what Frederick Douglass said when they erected the Lincoln Memorial...
"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
He emancipated slaves in 1863 so it's a moot point.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves. In the first place, he couldn't free slaves in territories the union didn't control. Secondly, there were four slave states that remained in the union, the emancipation proclamation did not apply to those states, and they continued to have slavery the entire war(and the Fugitive-slave Act also remained in force in those states). Thirdly, the president didn't have the authority to free them, which is why slavery didn't actually end until the 13th amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
And the policy that Indians would have their own separate territories goes back to at least the Treaty of 1667 and was always the policy.
Wrong. The original policy of the United States was basically to assimilate the Native-Americans by converting them to farmers. Thomas Jefferson set out to trade land for farming tools, as well as to create schools to blend the Natives into the whites. Andrew Jackson changed the policy to one of removing all of the Native-Americans East of the Mississippi and giving them equivalent lands West of the Mississippi(Indian Removal Act/Trail of Tears). And the last iteration of the policy was to seize 90% of the native lands, leave 10% of the worst land as reservations, put up forts around the reservations to prevent them from leaving, while making them dependent on government rations as a way to destroy their way-of-life.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-23-2021 at 05:56 PM..
Apparently, all of our "Land of Lincoln" license plates, Welcome to Illinois signs, etc. will need to be swapped out. Perhaps we can start touting Al Capone instead.
Why is America sprint headlong towards the lowest common denominator of human intelligence??
My vote would be for Leroy Brown, as in the Jim Croce song.
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.
