Confederate flag flies again..

[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

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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 they where 50 years ago much less 150.

Well you are simply going off what I said and did not read the article did you?
That's quite plain.
The fact is, Blacks joined the Democratic Party almost as soon as the war was over and the greatest part of them are still in that party. The reasons for so have nothing to do with your reasoning.

[Stealhead]

You clearly did not read that article that much is clear.The word "democratic" is not even used once in the entire editorial.

Let me link it for you so you may read it.... http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-04-guelzo/


Let us see the last paragraph Stealhead why certainly;

"The Emancipation Proclamation may lack the rhetorical elegance of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural, but Guelzo makes it clear that the Proclamation is the most epochal of Lincoln’s public pronouncements. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is the definitive treatment of emancipation. Allen Guelzo deserves our immense gratitude for returning this critical document to its place of honor in the history of the American Republic."

You where using an article to prove the statements of Takeda Shingen wrong yet fail to realize that the author of the article holds the same view that Takeda does.


First African American congressman Hiram Rhodes elected into office in 1870 party Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels
Here is a list of every African American person elected to federal office during Reconnection all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Reconstruction

Anyway keep doing your revisionist thing.Also look up the term "Dixiecrats"

[Wolferz]

It was all about cotton.

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You clearly did not read that article that much is clear.The word "democratic" is not even used once in the entire editorial.

Let me link it for you so you may read it.... http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-04-guelzo/


Let us see the last paragraph Stealhead why certainly;

"The Emancipation Proclamation may lack the rhetorical elegance of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural, but Guelzo makes it clear that the Proclamation is the most epochal of Lincoln’s public pronouncements. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is the definitive treatment of emancipation. Allen Guelzo deserves our immense gratitude for returning this critical document to its place of honor in the history of the American Republic."

You where using an article to prove the statements of Takeda Shingen wrong yet fail to realize that the author of the article holds the same view that Takeda does.


First African American congressman Hiram Rhodes elected into office in 1870 party Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels
Here is a list of every African American person elected to federal office during Reconnection all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Reconstruction

Anyway keep doing your revisionist thing.Also look up the term "Dixiecrats"

Yeah, I read it.
And yes there are Blacks in the Republican Party. But they were and are only a handful of the general Black population.
The Democrates started the "Freemans Bureau" which later morphed into the Federal Welfare Department. In an attempt to buy votes no doubt.

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

So? Does that make him a bad guy?
The guy you quoted is an old white Republican (Allen Guelzo) who jumped on the Lincoln bandwagon not all that long ago and now can't pump out enough books about Lincoln. I guess your guy is better than mine!
Well here is some very respected people who don't think his info is that correct.

Allen Guelzo Misinforms the World Socialist Movement About Lincoln
By Thomas DiLorenzo
April 8, 2013
LewRockwell.com

And "Dixiecrats"? Who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 has what to do with the Civil War? As I said there are Blacks in the Republican Party, Rice, Powell,ect. But no where near the number that are Democrates.
Anyway, you can have the last word now. I'm done with this. And no, I'm not a Republican.