Rate My Presidents Volume 1: Abraham Lincoln

PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,850 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2012 in The Social Lounge
I've been meaning to make this thread a while ago back during the 2012 Election. So Obama has been elected, and I watched the movie, Lincoln, about a week ago. Made me think about our presidents and how well/badly they've done. So I thought it'd be nice to discuss and rate these presidents and maybe even learn a thing or two about American history.

The rules are as simple as the American grading system for secondary schools: you vote and give the president an A, B, C, D, or F. The criteria for the grading are indefinite but should include major ones like handling of foreign and domestic political affairs, handling of the economy, handling of the American people and society, overall legacy on America, etc. If criteria such as personality, wit, fashion, etc have to be counted, then please have them counted in only a minor way because the grade should be about how well the president did his job, not so much about what kind of person he was/is. And try to give some explanation for your final grade.

Abraham_Lincoln_November_1863.jpg

So, first up is Abraham Lincoln, whose recent biopic I actually enjoyed. But the obvious problem with Lincoln is that he's romanticized to such an extent that the real person is lost and replaced by an idealized image of him. Only a few Americans actually know that Lincoln was not the savior-saint that media paints him to be. He was incredibly shrewd and therefore hated by his enemies and some of his friends (Frederick Douglass even "hated" him). His initial, sole purpose for the Civil War was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. In fact he expressed his racist views many times before his election and stated that he would've preserved slavery or shipped all the slaves back to Africa if that meant preserving the Union. And the legality of his war against the Confedaracy is a whole 'nother, complicated issue.

However, I still think that he eventually grew into a good person and president. As a smart, strong, and tactical commander-in-chief, he did succeed in preserving the Union and abolishing slavery, which was seen as an impossible feat by many. He was also merciful and understanding (as opposed to being a brutal dictator) to the Confederate States, which could've helped the healing process for the Union if it wasn't for John Wilkes Booth's dumb ass. I'm guessing that the war also stimulated the economy. And lastly, he was one of the few presidents to start out poor and politically disadavntaged. He lived the American Dream (from rags to riches) and showed that the American president could be a "common man."

My Final Grade: A

Rate My Presidents Volume 1: Abraham Lincoln

This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
SionThatDamnJay
«1

Replies

  • DarcSkiesDarcSkies Shut Up Kat =) Posts: 10,829 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A
    My final grade is A also.

    But he only said those things in the first year of the war. He actually traveled around and met a few former slaves (saw this on the History Channel) and it opened his eyes to a lot of things.

    I think by the end of the war he was actually against slavery. But yes, at first he could give a fuck about blacks. Pretty sure he probably didnt even like them afterward and had the Confederates surrendered earlier they'd have been allowed to keep blacks in some kind of bondage anyway.

    There was 100 years of Peonage after the Civil War anyway.

    Which is why one of my favorite presidents is President GRant. Because he at least tried to protect blacks when the KKK rose up from the ashes of the confederacy. But the president after grant fucked up...but I guess thats another thread...
    PlutarchOya_HusbandMikeydaGawd
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    it's also worth noting that the common quote about Lincoln taking the preservation of the Union versus the emancipation of slaves is ALSO meant as his statement on what he understood his job as president to be, and not a personal position. but we go through this every time with Lincoln.
    Plutarch
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    F
    Suspended Habeas Corpus

    and he was a corporate stooge for
    northern industrialists hence the reason
    for the Civil War.

    Plus his whole I dont give a fuck about
    black folks they are just political pawns
    is the same play politicians on both sides
    of the isle have been running since
    1863.
    En-Fuego22DarkRaiden
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    edited December 2012
    A
    Amotekun wrote: »
    and he was a corporate stooge for
    northern industrialists hence the reason
    for the Civil War.
    excellent job defending people who wanted to break up the country over the possibility of losing their slaves

    P swayze166
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    F
    janklow wrote: »
    Amotekun wrote: »
    and he was a corporate stooge for
    northern industrialists hence the reason
    for the Civil War.
    excellent job defending people who wanted to break up the country over the possibility of losing their slaves

    Firstly Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in Northern cities far
    before implementing these procedures in the South. The first
    area was Philadelphia.

    Its not about defending people for their inhumanity.
    Northern states were just as harsh in their treatment of Africans.
    Lincoln wasn't suspending Habeas Corpus in defense of slaves either
    he was doing it to suppress political opposition in the north.

    In fact in the Northeastern parts of the US there were individual families
    who owned slaves.

    It's about a government official setting an unconstitutional precedence
    by usurping congressional powers.
    Plutarch
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,850 ✭✭✭✭
    A
    I have the same ambivalences that amotekun has (which I alluded to in the op), and even though I have an overall different opinion (I think that Lincoln did what was necessary considering the fact that he was dealing with a broken country full of idiots) and even though I disagree and think that an F is a too harsh grade, I can respect any opinion that's supported, so meh.

    I have Lincoln in my #2 or #3 spot, so I can't even imagine how badly the other presidents are going to do with you, amotekun. You're like one of them teachers from high school who already decided to flunk you at first sight. Accepts no late papers (not even two minutes late), gives no extra credit, and grades you extra hard for some reason.

    So if you're so passionate about constitutional integrity and civil rights, would it be a stretch to say that you support the rights of the Confederacy to have formed and seceded from the United States? and that you would support the right of Southern states today to secede from the United States because the majority of their populations hate Obama?
  • 313 wayz313 wayz Posts: 747 ✭✭✭✭
    A
    He got alot of critical items accomplished during his short time in office that had a positive impact on the country even after he died. Had he finished out his second term, I wonder what he would have done for the freed slaves.
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    F
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I have the same ambivalences that amotekun has (which I alluded to in the op), and even though I have an overall different opinion (I think that Lincoln did what was necessary considering the fact that he was dealing with a broken country full of idiots) and even though I disagree and think that an F is a too harsh grade, I can respect any opinion that's supported, so meh.

    I have Lincoln in my #2 or #3 spot, so I can't even imagine how badly the other presidents are going to do with you, amotekun. You're like one of them teachers from high school who already decided to flunk you at first sight. Accepts no late papers (not even two minutes late), gives no extra credit, and grades you extra hard for some reason.

    So if you're so passionate about constitutional integrity and civil rights, would it be a stretch to say that you support the rights of the Confederacy to have formed and seceded from the United States? and that you would support the right of Southern states today to secede from the United States because the majority of their populations hate Obama?


    I actually would have rather had the south stalemated or defended their right to separation.

    1) The civil war left the south depleted financially, materially, and white man power

    2) We didnt need the Civil War for slaves to be free because those who wanted freedom broke
    North into Canada or South into Florida. You wait for the oppressor to give you freedom only thing
    you're waiting for is a renegotiation of your oppression. Freedom must be taken by the oppressed class.

    3) If the south would have been left vulnerable, it is quite possible that armies from Haiti would have assisted
    in major slave rebellions. The South without a Navy or a healthy Army would have been susceptible to a costly
    defeat.

    We will never know such things because Black folks stay taking the cowards way out. Instead of
    fighting for freedom we renegotiate the terms of our oppression.

    "okay okay so instead of black folks outright being generational slaves how about it find ways to imprison them thereby "legally" enslaving them and forced labor. [13th amendment]

    Okay Corporations need a way to say that these goods are "made in america" without having the overhead of
    standard wages and unions.....say we have a war on drugs stiffer penalties for possession and distribution
    of course stiffer penalties for Black offenders...now we have a prison population that we can privatize and put to work. Wow! Didnt that just work out grand. There are more Black people in prison than there were on plantations...

    Shit that make your Soul. Burn. Slow.
    PlutarchGreenCapitalist90(Nope)
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Its not about defending people for their inhumanity.
    at this point, it is. fear of abolition drove the Confederacy to demand secession; you're trying to dodge this by talking about how harsh the North was and all, but are you going to pretend the war was STARTED by Northern industrialists?
    Amotekun wrote: »
    2) We didnt need the Civil War for slaves to be free because those who wanted freedom broke North into Canada or South into Florida.
    yeah, to hell with freeing slaves in the Civil War, they should all just have escaped to Canada
    Plutarch
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    F
    janklow wrote: »
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Its not about defending people for their inhumanity.
    at this point, it is. fear of abolition drove the Confederacy to demand secession; you're trying to dodge this by talking about how harsh the North was and all, but are you going to pretend the war was STARTED by Northern industrialists?
    Amotekun wrote: »
    2) We didnt need the Civil War for slaves to be free because those who wanted freedom broke North into Canada or South into Florida.
    yeah, to hell with freeing slaves in the Civil War, they should all just have escaped to Canada
    janklow wrote: »
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Its not about defending people for their inhumanity.
    at this point, it is. fear of abolition drove the Confederacy to demand secession; you're trying to dodge this by talking about how harsh the North was and all, but are you going to pretend the war was STARTED by Northern industrialists?
    Amotekun wrote: »
    2) We didnt need the Civil War for slaves to be free because those who wanted freedom broke North into Canada or South into Florida.
    yeah, to hell with freeing slaves in the Civil War, they should all just have escaped to Canada

    Black folk were no more free after slavery than they were before. Most were still too poor they had to go right back and work for the motherfuckers they were supposedly just freed from.

    That short ass period of reconstruction was a joke.the moment black folks started getting political clout and muscle it got yanked when the union troops left and jim crow came in. during slavery more slaves were escaping into florida than canada or north in general post fugitive slave act.

    So yes black folks would have been better being slaves until they got pissed enough to be free or die. We've been existing in this state of pseudo citizenship ever since we allowed our oppressors to determine the conditions of our emancipation
  • Supreme_GentlemanSupreme_Gentleman #RapeCulture Posts: 19,312 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Black folk were no more free after slavery than they were before.
    here's the thing: black folk may still have been getting entirely fucked by society after slavery ended. however, this is still better than ACTUAL SLAVERY.
    Amotekun wrote: »
    That short ass period of reconstruction was a joke.the moment black folks started getting political clout and muscle it got yanked when the union troops left and jim crow came in. during slavery more slaves were escaping into florida than canada or north in general post fugitive slave act.
    so now let's discuss how Reconstruction was a joke because Lincoln was killed and the man who replace him --the kind of president who ACTUALLY deserves a rating of F-- fucked it all up.
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    F
    janklow wrote: »
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Black folk were no more free after slavery than they were before.
    here's the thing: black folk may still have been getting entirely fucked by society after slavery ended. however, this is still better than ACTUAL SLAVERY.
    Amotekun wrote: »
    That short ass period of reconstruction was a joke.the moment black folks started getting political clout and muscle it got yanked when the union troops left and jim crow came in. during slavery more slaves were escaping into florida than canada or north in general post fugitive slave act.
    so now let's discuss how Reconstruction was a joke because Lincoln was killed and the man who replace him --the kind of president who ACTUALLY deserves a rating of F-- fucked it all up.

    The period known as Jim Crowism is just slavery by another name.

    It's de facto slavery...sharecropping, vagrancy laws...prison chain gangs, sundown towns

    not to mention the terror of the klan backed by the state.

    Jim Crow was worse because these niggas had the ability to deny
    can't deny. With state legislated slavery that shit was on the books
    there is no denying it. Black folks knew what time it was.
    Jim Crow was this pseudo state of existence. Jim Crowism is just a continuation
    of slavery just liek the war on drugs is a continuation of slavery.

    Because we were emancipated by the oppressor the only thing that white folks have ever
    done was renegotiate the terms of our slavery.

    Saying that Reconstruction was a joke or that it got fucked is implying that it was intended
    to go some other way. The power Blacks folks thought they had during slavery was just leverage
    northern industrialists were using to keep the south in line.

    White folks were never going to let ex-slaves who they barely regarded as human tote any type of
    influence. Black exist today as we've always existed in white people's eyes, as objects to be used
    at their discretion and necessity to gain something larger. Black folks are still slaves, mostly debt slaves
    but slaves none the less.
  • waterproofwaterproof Conqueror of Self On The Road to ZionPosts: 8,956 ✭✭✭✭✭
    C
    Abe really didnt care about the Slaves, let's be honest people the civil war was not about slaves it was about a power economic structure of the North against the South.....
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    F
    waterproof wrote: »
    Abe really didnt care about the Slaves, let's be honest people the civil war was not about slaves it was about a power economic structure of the North against the South.....

    Bascially...once the west opened up that changed the game as it had been played up until that point.

    To further illustrate the point I was made in my previous post
    here is a documentary called The New Jim Crow...it Really Should be called the New Slavery

    this is about the aforementioned War on Drugs



  • (Nope)(Nope) Posts: 758 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I have the same ambivalences that amotekun has (which I alluded to in the op), and even though I have an overall different opinion (I think that Lincoln did what was necessary considering the fact that he was dealing with a broken country full of idiots) and even though I disagree and think that an F is a too harsh grade, I can respect any opinion that's supported, so meh.

    I have Lincoln in my #2 or #3 spot, so I can't even imagine how badly the other presidents are going to do with you, amotekun. You're like one of them teachers from high school who already decided to flunk you at first sight. Accepts no late papers (not even two minutes late), gives no extra credit, and grades you extra hard for some reason.

    So if you're so passionate about constitutional integrity and civil rights, would it be a stretch to say that you support the rights of the Confederacy to have formed and seceded from the United States? and that you would support the right of Southern states today to secede from the United States because the majority of their populations hate Obama?

    Okay Corporations need a way to say that these goods are "made in america" without having the overhead of
    standard wages and unions.....say we have a war on drugs stiffer penalties for possession and distribution
    of course stiffer penalties for Black offenders...now we have a prison population that we can privatize and put to work. Wow! Didnt that just work out grand. There are more Black people in prison than there were on plantations...

    Shit that make your Soul. Burn. Slow.

    Killed it...

    There is so many things wrong with the Prison Industrial Complex, including, but not limited to the above, I'm not sure where to begin. (I'm too tired to start on drugs, sorry I'm off topic.)

    -Prisoners, although unable to vote are often considered constituents, exploited for purposes of gerrymandering.
    -You can own your very own prison, "YES YOU" and the government will pay you for housing each prisoner per diem.
    -Prisoners are cheap labor, many prisoners are required to work creating products for the private sector as well as the government, making it impossible for small market companies to compete.
    - These same prisoners that are required to work may actually leave jail in debt, although tax dollars fuel the Prison Industrial Complex, they are forced to pay their way through incarceration.

    All this in a country with a history of Institutionalized racism, prisons are the new plantations.


    Plutarch
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,850 ✭✭✭✭
    A
    (Nope) wrote: »
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I have the same ambivalences that amotekun has (which I alluded to in the op), and even though I have an overall different opinion (I think that Lincoln did what was necessary considering the fact that he was dealing with a broken country full of idiots) and even though I disagree and think that an F is a too harsh grade, I can respect any opinion that's supported, so meh.

    I have Lincoln in my #2 or #3 spot, so I can't even imagine how badly the other presidents are going to do with you, amotekun. You're like one of them teachers from high school who already decided to flunk you at first sight. Accepts no late papers (not even two minutes late), gives no extra credit, and grades you extra hard for some reason.

    So if you're so passionate about constitutional integrity and civil rights, would it be a stretch to say that you support the rights of the Confederacy to have formed and seceded from the United States? and that you would support the right of Southern states today to secede from the United States because the majority of their populations hate Obama?

    Okay Corporations need a way to say that these goods are "made in america" without having the overhead of
    standard wages and unions.....say we have a war on drugs stiffer penalties for possession and distribution
    of course stiffer penalties for Black offenders...now we have a prison population that we can privatize and put to work. Wow! Didnt that just work out grand. There are more Black people in prison than there were on plantations...

    Shit that make your Soul. Burn. Slow.

    Killed it...

    There is so many things wrong with the Prison Industrial Complex, including, but not limited to the above, I'm not sure where to begin. (I'm too tired to start on drugs, sorry I'm off topic.)

    -Prisoners, although unable to vote are often considered constituents, exploited for purposes of gerrymandering.
    -You can own your very own prison, "YES YOU" and the government will pay you for housing each prisoner per diem.
    -Prisoners are cheap labor, many prisoners are required to work creating products for the private sector as well as the government, making it impossible for small market companies to compete.
    - These same prisoners that are required to work may actually leave jail in debt, although tax dollars fuel the Prison Industrial Complex, they are forced to pay their way through incarceration.

    All this in a country with a history of Institutionalized racism, prisons are the new plantations.


    I agree mostly, but I hope we're not factoring the evils of the prison industrial complex with the assessment of Lincoln. The two don't have much to do with each other directly.

    And even though I mostly agree, I think that we can all agree that these prisoners dont HAVE to put themselves in these positions. You can't commit a serious crime, end up in prison, and blame the government. That's just being irresponsible. Though, the fact that our prisons are overcrowded means that the central problem that allows the prison industrial complex to thrive in the first place lies elsewhere.
    waterproof wrote: »
    Abe really didnt care about the Slaves, let's be honest people the civil war was not about slaves it was about a power economic structure of the North against the South.....

    That's interesting. No disrespect to anyone, but whenever I hear a white person, who might or might not be a racist, say that the civil war was not about slavery, he automatically gets pegged as a racist.

    Anyway, I can agree with this, but wasn't the central part of the South's power structure slavery? Therefore, wasnt the Civil War fought over slavery, at least on the South's end? I still can't wrap my head around the idea that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Everything suggests otherwise.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    Amotekun wrote: »
    The period known as Jim Crowism is just slavery by another name.
    which was the result of presidents AFTER Lincoln fucking up Reconstruction --so i have no idea how this is supposed to be a reflection on Lincoln-- and which is, i will say it again, still better than slavery. ultimately you have legal progress against Jim Crow; if slavery is left legal, there would never be progress against it (beyond limiting its scope, i suppose) until emancipation happened.
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Saying that Reconstruction was a joke or that it got fucked is implying that it was intended to go some other way.
    actually, yes, it WAS supposed to go another way. and then it got fucked up.
    Amotekun wrote: »
    White folks were never going to let ex-slaves who they barely regarded as human tote any type of influence. Black exist today as we've always existed in white people's eyes, as objects to be used
    at their discretion and necessity to gain something larger. Black folks are still slaves, mostly debt slaves
    but slaves none the less.
    ...and we're saying all this with a black president in the White House waiting for his second term to start. please excuse me while i roll my eyes extremely hard.
    waterproof wrote: »
    Abe really didnt care about the Slaves, let's be honest people the civil war was not about slaves it was about a power economic structure of the North against the South.....
    let's be honest: Lincoln said otherwise, and the South began secession and/or kicked off the Civil War because of the threat of abolition that the election of Lincoln represented.
  • waterproofwaterproof Conqueror of Self On The Road to ZionPosts: 8,956 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    C
    janklow wrote: »
    Amotekun wrote: »
    The period known as Jim Crowism is just slavery by another name.
    which was the result of presidents AFTER Lincoln fucking up Reconstruction --so i have no idea how this is supposed to be a reflection on Lincoln-- and which is, i will say it again, still better than slavery. ultimately you have legal progress against Jim Crow; if slavery is left legal, there would never be progress against it (beyond limiting its scope, i suppose) until emancipation happened.
    Amotekun wrote: »
    Saying that Reconstruction was a joke or that it got fucked is implying that it was intended to go some other way.
    actually, yes, it WAS supposed to go another way. and then it got fucked up.
    Amotekun wrote: »
    White folks were never going to let ex-slaves who they barely regarded as human tote any type of influence. Black exist today as we've always existed in white people's eyes, as objects to be used
    at their discretion and necessity to gain something larger. Black folks are still slaves, mostly debt slaves
    but slaves none the less.
    ...and we're saying all this with a black president in the White House waiting for his second term to start. please excuse me while i roll my eyes extremely hard.
    waterproof wrote: »
    Abe really didnt care about the Slaves, let's be honest people the civil war was not about slaves it was about a power economic structure of the North against the South.....
    let's be honest: Lincoln said otherwise, and the South began secession and/or kicked off the Civil War because of the threat of abolition that the election of Lincoln represented.

    not true at all the majority of the Northeners didnt care enought about slaves and slavery in the south to go to war against because the cost of money and lives, it was about the Elites in the South and The Elites in the North because the common man and women in the south was poor farmers/peaseants and had no economic politcal voice, the majority common man and woman in the north was living in slums, poor, broke and not political powerful and slaves was lower then them, and if there was a war the poor was going to do the fighting those that could vote and in the lower class was tired of war already....

    ...........The South secession when Abe became President is because Abe represented, promoted the Northen Elite agenda Northern Elite wanted a Bank of the United States, Economic Expansion (Free Land, Free Market, High rate tariffs for Manufacturing companies) into texas, south west and the west that also produce cotton with their machines producing more goods faster than manual Slave labor that will have them producing goods to countries to England that the south depend on all that goes against the South and their way of living that would effect the rich slave owners.....

    So that's why they left the Union because of the Northern Elite Policies and when the seven states left he tried to take over their land, that's why when the in his Inagural address he made appeal to them.

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively,
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    waterproof wrote: »
    not true at all the majority of the Northeners didnt care enought about slaves and slavery in the south to go to war against because the cost of money and lives-
    however, considering that the SOUTH seceded and kicked off the war, it doesn't really matter if the average Northerner would have started a war out of nowhere to end slavery.
    waterproof wrote: »
    ...........The South secession when Abe became President is because Abe represented, promoted the Northen Elite agenda Northern Elite wanted a Bank of the United States, Economic Expansion (Free Land, Free Market, High rate tariffs for Manufacturing companies) into texas, south west and the west that also produce cotton with their machines producing more goods faster than manual Slave labor that will have them producing goods to countries to England that the south depend on all that goes against the South and their way of living that would effect the rich slave owners.....
    let me start with the fact that you're talking about the "Northern elite" expanding their machinery into Texas ... and then point out that this war saw Texas secede over slavery for the SECOND time in its history.

    remember that Lincoln was elected as a Republican, a party that had been, at the very least, clamoring for the end to the expansion of slavery, and that in turn, Southerners believed that without the expansion of slavery, they would eventually lose the ability to keep it at all. talking about the "elites" is meaningless because of COURSE you have an elite in the North and an elite in the South.
  • waterproofwaterproof Conqueror of Self On The Road to ZionPosts: 8,956 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    C
    janklow wrote: »
    waterproof wrote: »
    not true at all the majority of the Northeners didnt care enought about slaves and slavery in the south to go to war against because the cost of money and lives-
    however, considering that the SOUTH seceded and kicked off the war, it doesn't really matter if the average Northerner would have started a war out of nowhere to end slavery.
    waterproof wrote: »
    ...........The South secession when Abe became President is because Abe represented, promoted the Northen Elite agenda Northern Elite wanted a Bank of the United States, Economic Expansion (Free Land, Free Market, High rate tariffs for Manufacturing companies) into texas, south west and the west that also produce cotton with their machines producing more goods faster than manual Slave labor that will have them producing goods to countries to England that the south depend on all that goes against the South and their way of living that would effect the rich slave owners.....
    let me start with the fact that you're talking about the "Northern elite" expanding their machinery into Texas ... and then point out that this war saw Texas secede over slavery for the SECOND time in its history.

    remember that Lincoln was elected as a Republican, a party that had been, at the very least, clamoring for the end to the expansion of slavery, and that in turn, Southerners believed that without the expansion of slavery, they would eventually lose the ability to keep it at all. talking about the "elites" is meaningless because of COURSE you have an elite in the North and an elite in the South.

    i believed i was talking about the Elites in the North and South that control the banks, trade, commerce......The Civil was was about the North and South who was competing with each other for years over Trade, Free Labor, Taxes, Tariffs, Banking, Currency competing against each other to sell goods to spain, french, GB and other countries...... and the greatest fear of the south was due to the increase immigrants of the North that gives the North more representation in the House of Representatives to block any South Legislation that helps the south.

    The North was squeezing the south, what was economically great for the North was shitty for the south.. So for the South to Compete with the North they had to expand to other states and bring in more slaves, there was only a few wealthy Plantation Owners, the North had Immigrants to work for cheap and was building more factories.

    The Civil War was years in the makings with events like Tariff of Abominations and Nullification Crisis...

    was Slavery apart of the Civil War, yes it was because of the North forcing the South hand with their crippling economic policies that forced the south to expand to other states to compete with the North then telling them that they can not expand slavery......

    Was it about Slavery, No, not at first.... only when the North population that was poor was tired of seeing their young men die, then start causing problems by burning the Union Military recruitment centers, demanding more money from the federal goverment for the service in war, Attacking Free Blacks and killing them, founding militias to fight against Union Soliders and demanding blacks to fight for their freedom instead of whites...

    But the talks of The South leaving the Union started around 1850's when the South was having fears of the North's domination in national economic policy and they felt that the North was going to take their rights of slave owning.
  • dalyricalbanditdalyricalbandit Co-Owner Of AllhipHop.com, Super Moderator, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 48,164 Regulator
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    waterproof wrote: »
    was Slavery apart of the Civil War, yes it was because of the North forcing the South hand with their crippling economic policies that forced the south to expand to other states to compete with the North then telling them that they can not expand slavery......
    the fact that you're going all out to defend the South's complaint about NOT being allowed to expand slavery is stunning.

    further, this whole "North competing with the South" thing is weird when you consider how the South prosecuted the war: in a largely every-state-for-itself manner. it wasn't "expanding to other states," it was promoting slavery being allowed in other states to protect slavery. how does a robust economy in a new state help "crippling economic policies" from fucking with, say, Georgia?
    waterproof wrote: »
    Was it about Slavery, No, not at first...
    i seem to recall South Carolina being the first state to secede, and i recall them explicitly stating that they were rolling out because the US had elected a president who was planning to outlaw slavery, and that the government had not done enough to defend slavery. so whatever other issues were at work, why pretend that slavery wasn't right at the start of this.
  • waterproofwaterproof Conqueror of Self On The Road to ZionPosts: 8,956 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    C
    janklow wrote: »
    waterproof wrote: »
    was Slavery apart of the Civil War, yes it was because of the North forcing the South hand with their crippling economic policies that forced the south to expand to other states to compete with the North then telling them that they can not expand slavery......
    the fact that you're going all out to defend the South's complaint about NOT being allowed to expand slavery is stunning.

    further, this whole "North competing with the South" thing is weird when you consider how the South prosecuted the war: in a largely every-state-for-itself manner. it wasn't "expanding to other states," it was promoting slavery being allowed in other states to protect slavery. how does a robust economy in a new state help "crippling economic policies" from fucking with, say, Georgia?
    waterproof wrote: »
    Was it about Slavery, No, not at first...
    i seem to recall South Carolina being the first state to secede, and i recall them explicitly stating that they were rolling out because the US had elected a president who was planning to outlaw slavery, and that the government had not done enough to defend slavery. so whatever other issues were at work, why pretend that slavery wasn't right at the start of this.

    LOL, i am defending the south?? that's what you call it...that's called stating the historical facts....I can care less about the confederacy and the Union the Civil war was not about freeing my ancestors until late in the war and none of those devils gave a shit about my people so fuck them.......

    Was that an excuse that South Carolina used this time to secede because i could of swear that in 1832 South Carolina tried to secede from the Union because of the high tariffs, the only reason they didnt was because of Andrew Jackson..But of course they going to say that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery because they need a boogey man even though as i stated aboved that Lincoln already said that he wasnt no going to Outlaw slavery and that the states have their rights....

    But Slavery was the big elephant in the room because of Demark Vassey, Nat Turner, John Brown Raid, The Fugitive Slave act, abolitionist in the North (even though the abolitionist didn't want blacks to have much say in the movement) ect...

  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,650 Regulator
    A
    waterproof wrote: »
    LOL, i am defending the south?? that's what you call it...that's called stating the historical facts...
    when you run with the notion that the war was caused by Northern elites fucking with the South, which is the same kind of story peddled by people that call it the War of Northern Aggression, yeah, you're absolutely defending the South. you know, the guys that started the war. so if you don't want to get labeled as defending them...
    waterproof wrote: »
    I can care less about the confederacy and the Union the Civil war was not about freeing my ancestors until late in the war and none of those devils gave a shit about my people so fuck them...
    seems a LITTLE off considering that the war is around the time of a new political party rising on an abolitionist platform...
    waterproof wrote: »
    Was that an excuse that South Carolina used this time to secede because i could of swear that in 1832 South Carolina tried to secede from the Union because of the high tariffs, the only reason they didnt was because of Andrew Jackson..But of course they going to say that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery because they need a boogey man even though as i stated aboved that Lincoln already said that he wasnt no going to Outlaw slavery and that the states have their rights.
    what's funny, though, is that while you're claiming it was an "excuse" and that it somehow was clear Lincoln wasn't going to fuck with slavery, i'm talking about what South Carolina EXPLICITLY STATED in their actual declaration of secession. which they followed up by attempting to secede from the Union. which would seem to say this was a little more than a phantom claim that never happened.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.