A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

reply to post by elevatedone


I find the statement in the OP to be chilling, Slavery is no more the cause of the civil war than gun ownership or racism will be the cause of the coming one.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by Castillo

 

There are several historians who state that he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

Yet Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, the authors of Colonisation After Emancipation, discovered documents in the National Archives in Kew and in the US that will significantly alter his legacy.

They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I feel he realized that the slaves had no connection to their cultural roots in Africa, had no education or skills, no financial means to better themselves and a population that did not want them there.

This is an exploratory historical theory, not an established historical fact.

You're free to believe it or not, however, please don't disparage those of us who use standard academic modi of intellectual exploration.

Originally posted by Castillo

Then he wanted to send them all back to Africa.

Source?

(Lincoln had nothing to do with the founding of Liberia so I'm going to cut that one off at the pass right now. Feel free to post another source that has to do with something other than Liberia.)

Hard to find sources from the Lincoln days.

But books suggested he wanted to deport the slaves to Belize, Panama and Guyana, a few hundred actually

were deported to islands off Haita.

It was said He was passionate about this , but had his Head Airred out months latter.www.washingtontimes.com...

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Castillo

Then he wanted to send them all back to Africa.

Source?

(Lincoln had nothing to do with the founding of Liberia so I'm going to cut that one off at the pass right now. Feel free to post another source that has to do with something other than Liberia.)

Hard to find sources from the Lincoln days.

So how'd you find out about it then?

Originally posted by Castillo

So how'd you find out about it then?

edit on 9-7-2012 by Castillo because: (no reason given)

Its called History, you should check it out, it will make you not ask such Dumb Questions.

Originally posted by Castillo

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by Castillo

 

There are several historians who state that he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

Yet Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, the authors of Colonisation After Emancipation, discovered documents in the National Archives in Kew and in the US that will significantly alter his legacy.

They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I feel he realized that the slaves had no connection to their cultural roots in Africa, had no education or skills, no financial means to better themselves and a population that did not want them there.

This is an exploratory historical theory, not an established historical fact.

You're free to believe it or not, however, please don't disparage those of us who use standard academic modi of intellectual exploration.

actually, its from Lincoln's own mouth:

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

www.ihr.org...
History is awesome.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Castillo

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by Castillo

 

There are several historians who state that he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

Yet Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, the authors of Colonisation After Emancipation, discovered documents in the National Archives in Kew and in the US that will significantly alter his legacy.

They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I feel he realized that the slaves had no connection to their cultural roots in Africa, had no education or skills, no financial means to better themselves and a population that did not want them there.

This is an exploratory historical theory, not an established historical fact.

You're free to believe it or not, however, please don't disparage those of us who use standard academic modi of intellectual exploration.

actually, its from Lincoln's own mouth:

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

www.ihr.org...
History is awesome.

edit on 9-7-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he said -

'If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia — to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that, whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days.'

- even more awesome than history is knowing history, instead of just out-of-context pull-quotes you found at a Holocaust Denial website like IHR.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Advantage


If the south had more wealth than the north why did it finance the war through loans and the debasement of it's currency?

Originally posted by lokdog
reply to post by Advantage

 

If the south had more wealth than the north why did it finance the war through loans and the debasement of it's currency?

The North fought the war with one hand tied behind it's back. The Southern cause, as executed, was hopeless. However, this being America, they have made as significant an impact on history as any northern state.

While it is clear that the war created opportunities - both legitimate and not - it is evident that today we are "Americans" and not Northerners and Southerners.... which was the mission upon which Lincoln embarked.

I'm certain he would have rather it not have been necessary nor within his means to do some of the things he did. But that is the burden any President must bear.

If you all want to debate OT stuff ... issue a challenge.... I'm sure it would be good reading ... good luck!

Slavery was one of the main reasons why the South seceded, to act like it had nothing to do with it is just silly. Go read all of the deceleration of secessions, they name slavery as the cause. And to all the people that think slavery was ready to die out.. well you're wrong.

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.[13] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850.[14] By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market.[15]

en.wikipedia.org...

states rights? lol

looks like most here have fallen for the old southern values BS
no wonder the nation is in the crapper
and with a choice between a monarch puppet, a danite, phonier than the 3 dollar bills
his grandfather helped peddle, and a closet-dominionist as dark horse....:shk:


Conservative Southern Values Revived: How a Brutal Strain of American Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America America didn't used to be run like an old Southern slave plantation, but we're headed that way now. How did that happen?

North versus South: Two Definitions of Liberty

Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.www.powells.com... He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the American elite -- and that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the wrong side was winning. ***
Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.

As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South are descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton plantations from Barbados -- the younger sons of the British nobility who'd farmed up the Caribbean islands, and then came ashore to the southern coasts seeking more land. Woodward described the culture they created in the crescent stretching from Charleston, SC around to New Orleans this way:

It was a near-carbon copy of the West Indian slave state these Barbadians had left behind, a place notorious even then for its inhumanity....From the outset, Deep Southern culture was based on radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror. Its expansionist ambitions would put it on a collision course with its Yankee rivals, triggering military, social, and political conflicts that continue to plague the United States to this day.

David Hackett Fischer, whose Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In America informs both Lind's and Woodard's work, described just how deeply undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them at a problem whenever possible. Why buy a bulldozer when 150 convicts on a chain gang can grade your road instead?) Unlike the Puritan elites, who wore their wealth modestly and dedicated themselves to the common good, Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- including lavish parties, games of fortune, predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse spectacles.

But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule. Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned, unrestrained right to turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and subjects.

all these "political"/electoral discussions are, IMO, merely discussions regarding what kind of lube you'll be using
for the big screwing you're going to get this next november, while some will be whistling dixie

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Yeah, their states rights to keep Africans as slaves on their plantations

"Conservative Southern Values" want us all to be slaves to corporations so I'm not surprised.

reply to post by xstealth


yea, the rights to own slaves.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Because like all good confederates, you are taking it out of context.

For the social status of its time, his thinking was advanced, just not by today's standards.

it would of been like Regean pushing for gay marriage.