Confederate flag flies again..

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Succession was a preventive measure, states tired of the industrial protectionism policies the North was pushing on the South for their own benefit.

Okay, so it was a 'preventative measure'. Now we can finally put to rest the myth of the freedom-loving secessionist. I'm glad that you have come to your senses.

As I said,if the South didn't leave, accepted the coming tariffs, the North would've gladly supported MORE slavery in order to fill their banks and support their industry.

Citation needed.

The problem today is we try to make this a moral and social issue, it wasn't, it was about power,, politics and wealth.

Cornerstone speech.

Why do you think it was so easy for the North to enslave the indians after they freed the slaves?

They murdered them wholesale. That isn't slavery, it is genocide. And the south was involved in that too. It was a horrible, horrible thing. I think that this illustrates the difference between you and I. For me, the past is objective; for you it is subjective. I have no interest in whitewashing it.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

They murdered them wholesale. That isn't slavery, it is genocide. And the south was involved in that too. It was a horrible, horrible thing. I think that this illustrates the difference between you and I. For me, the past is objective; for you it is subjective. I have no interest in whitewashing it.

You obviously don't know much about history here. They enslaved a great majority on reservations as well.

When Lincoln was elected, it was a done deal. His campaign wasn't one of anti slavery, but one of tariffs and policies to support northern industry over the South.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

You obviously don't know much about history here. They enslaved a great majority on reservations as well.

You are aware that I'd have to have some respect for your character and/or intellectual capacity in order for your insults to stick, right?

When Lincoln was elected, it was a done deal. His campaign wasn't one of anti slavery, but one of tariffs and policies to support northern industry over the South.

Nothing changes the fact that slavery was the core issue behind the American Civil War. You can wish it all you'd like, and I am sure you will. But, when you put your fingers in your ears it is time for me to claim my victory and ride off into the sunset again. And yes, before you ask, it isn't hard at all to be this good. In fact, it is very, very easy.

[Simmy]

[QUOTE=Takeda Shingen;2098172
Nothing changes the fact that slavery was the core issue behind the American Civil War.You can wish it all you'd like, and I am sure you will. But, when you put your fingers in your ears it is time for me to claim my victory and ride off into the sunset again. And yes, before you ask, it isn't hard at all to be this good. In fact, it is very, very easy.[/QUOTE]

“my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

Many Blacks didn't see Lincoln has their “Great Emancipator”.

Many of Lincoln’s critics, especially African-Americans, go so far as to claim that he was no friend of blacks and did not want to risk the political fallout that would surely result from emancipation, but was eventually forced by circumstances to do so. In the words of Julius Lester, “Blacks have no reason to feel grateful to Abraham Lincoln. How come it took him two whole years to free the slaves? His pen was sitting on his desk the entire time.”

Many also have questioned the real significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that it was merely a piece of propaganda and that it actually freed no slaves. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “had the political strategy of the moment called for a momentous human document of the stature of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln could have risen to the occasion.” Instead, he produced a document with “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.” In addition, the document he issued only freed slaves where the federal government had no power. It did not apply to slaves in the loyal slave states or in those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Indeed, Lincoln did not free the slaves; they freed themselves.

Editorial
March 2004
by Mackubin T. Owens
ashbrook.org

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Simmy

“my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

Many Blacks didn't see Lincoln has their “Great Emancipator”.

Many of Lincoln’s critics, especially African-Americans, go so far as to claim that he was no friend of blacks and did not want to risk the political fallout that would surely result from emancipation, but was eventually forced by circumstances to do so. In the words of Julius Lester, “Blacks have no reason to feel grateful to Abraham Lincoln. How come it took him two whole years to free the slaves? His pen was sitting on his desk the entire time.”

Many also have questioned the real significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that it was merely a piece of propaganda and that it actually freed no slaves. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “had the political strategy of the moment called for a momentous human document of the stature of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln could have risen to the occasion.” Instead, he produced a document with “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.” In addition, the document he issued only freed slaves where the federal government had no power. It did not apply to slaves in the loyal slave states or in those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Indeed, Lincoln did not free the slaves; they freed themselves.

Editorial
March 2004
by Mackubin T. Owens
ashbrook.org

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

Your right.
My post was aimed at Takeda Shingen's comment about the Cival War being about slavery. It was, when it was convenient for him (Lincoln) to make it so.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

Your right.
My post was aimed at Takeda Shingen's comment about the Civil War being about slavery. It was, when it was convenient for him (Lincoln) to make it so.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Your right.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.

That is about the most illogical statement I have seen in some time.
The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party of today are vastly different in almost every respect from the Republican and Democratic parties of 150 years ago.

Hell they are vastly different from the parties that they where 50 years ago much less 150.

Man this whole revisionist history thing is very trendy it seems.It must have a lot to do with the general dissatisfaction that people of varying political views have.I guess it makes people fell better to create a subjective version of history that suits their ideals.

I am in no way denying that the idealized version of official history that most learn in school is the best.You can learn a more objective version even at a community college or by reading a few books and thinking for yourself it is also useful to understand when an author has an agenda.That is why with any subject that I have an interest in I like to read about it from multiple sources.

You got double posted by the way.

Oh, I regret to inform everyone that Mackubin T. Owens is white.Or he has a very serious skin condition.
http://ashbrook.org/wp-content/uploa.../06/OwensM.jpg