|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 24, 2017 16:45:56 GMT
Abraham Lincoln did not own slaves unless there's some kind of verification of this.
His wife, Mary Todd, was the daughter of a slave owner, but she didn't take them with her.
In any event, I think there is a misconception that someone being a part of a culture where slavery is the norm is the same thing as holding onto a culture where slavery is the norm when it was clearly dying out as a norm.
I read somewhere that he was a slave owner. The fact that he wasn't doesn't change the fact that the war wasn't fought over slavery. But still, my mistake. Slavery was the cause of the war... but, yes... technically.. The South seceded from The Union to preserve the institution of slavery. The North fought the war to stop them from seceding... not specifically to stop slavery. How one blurs that distinction is in the eye of beholder. MEAINGLESS SIDENOTE: It has been argued that the emphasis of Lincoln signing The Emancipation Proclamation lied more with preventing England from entering the war on the side of the south than it was with an actual desire to end slavery. For what that is worth... which ain't much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 24, 2017 16:49:47 GMT
tpfkar Honestly, both sides need to just calm down. Abraham Lincoln owned slaves. Why aren't they taking down his statues? Abraham Lincoln doesn't have statues because of his efforts to preserve slavery. Thank you. Even had Lincoln owned slaves, you'd think this was a difficult distinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 24, 2017 16:50:00 GMT
tpfkar  That's some dedicated slant-work. Lincoln was always against slavery, he just didn't know how to practically accomplish it near-term it given the Constitution. And since he personally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it's pretty odd to state that "he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life". Lincoln like most then was racist. And he was navigating what he knew was a powder keg. And his primary stated goal for resisting the secession and attacks of the South was that above all he wanted to keep the nation from splitting. But he was consistently anti-slavery on moral grounds throughout his career, and he also moderated his own racist beliefs a great deal over time. And, still regardless of every bit of that, putting up statues for accomplishments other than supporting slavery is a very different thing to putting up statues for supporting/fighting wars to support slavery. It's just not a "both sides" thing, no matter how badly the Nazis, racists and their sympathizers want it to be. on many sides
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 24, 2017 17:04:53 GMT
Oh, it's not just his policies. His general demeanour, stupidity and utter dishonesty contribute mightily. But as policies go, largely the wall, pulling out of the Paris agreement, the transgender military thing, "Trumpcare", etc. The Paris Agreement is a joke, like you. The rest of it is non-applicable to non-citizens of the US, so embarrassment on the world stage isn't a factor and never was. Of course, just like Kim Jong's wanna-be godhead escapades aren't mocked on the world stage since they only affect his own citizens...  You sure do vehemently defend the guy you didn't vote for that you voted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 24, 2017 17:20:02 GMT
The Paris Agreement is a joke, like you. The rest of it is non-applicable to non-citizens of the US, so embarrassment on the world stage isn't a factor and never was. Of course, just like Kim Jong's wanna-be godhead escapades aren't mocked on the world stage since they only affect his own citizens...  You sure do vehemently defend the guy you didn't vote for that you voted for. No, I don't. You sure do vehemently defend the "progressive" welfare state, don't you?  It's bad enough reading the trash posted by "my fellow Americans." If it's a domestic issue, a foreigner can either attain US citizenship and then complain about it, or STFU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 24, 2017 17:43:12 GMT
Of course, just like Kim Jong's wanna-be godhead escapades aren't mocked on the world stage since they only affect his own citizens...  You sure do vehemently defend the guy you didn't vote for that you voted for. No, I don't. ... he said, immediately after insisting the #1 global topic of political satire in print and visual media contains no factor of embarrassment.  Dude it's OK to just own what you say. Cool story - can you show me where? Nailed it, man. Americans must never comment on or lampoon other foreign leaders because they're not citizens of those countries. What reality are you in that this stuff pops up in your head? Edit: (It's rhetorical... we've seen enough of the Yewtewb links to know the answer.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Aug 25, 2017 8:39:45 GMT
I read somewhere that he was a slave owner. The fact that he wasn't doesn't change the fact that the war wasn't fought over slavery. But still, my mistake. Slavery was the cause of the war... but, yes... technically.. The South seceded from The Union to preserve the institution of slavery. The North fought the war to stop them from seceding... not specifically to stop slavery. How one blurs that distinction is in the eye of beholder. MEAINGLESS SIDENOTE: It has been argued that the emphasis of Lincoln signing The Emancipation Proclamation lied more with preventing England from entering the war on the side of the south than it was with an actual desire to end slavery. For what that is worth... which ain't much. I guess that's how I beheld it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 25, 2017 10:51:49 GMT
I guess that's how I beheld it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 25, 2017 11:21:18 GMT
tpfkar Slavery was the cause of the war... but, yes... technically.. The South seceded from The Union to preserve the institution of slavery. The North fought the war to stop them from seceding... not specifically to stop slavery. How one blurs that distinction is in the eye of beholder. MEAINGLESS SIDENOTE: It has been argued that the emphasis of Lincoln signing The Emancipation Proclamation lied more with preventing England from entering the war on the side of the south than it was with an actual desire to end slavery. For what that is worth... which ain't much. I guess that's how I beheld it. Not only did Lincoln primarily want to keep the country from being split in two, the South opened hostilities. But the key point of this discussion is that the Confederacy was about preserving slavery. Nothing to celebrate or hold up or honor. Except by the racists and the Nazis. on many sides
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 25, 2017 16:49:43 GMT
tpfkar I guess that's how I beheld it. Not only did Lincoln primarily want to keep the country from being split in two, the South opened hostilities. But the key point of this discussion is that the Confederacy was about preserving slavery. Nothing to celebrate or hold up or honor. Except by the racists and the Nazis. on many sidesWhen people insist it "wasn't about slavery" I recommend reading the actual declarations of secession. Each one describes slavery as a clear objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 25, 2017 17:06:07 GMT
tpfkar Not only did Lincoln primarily want to keep the country from being split in two, the South opened hostilities. But the key point of this discussion is that the Confederacy was about preserving slavery. Nothing to celebrate or hold up or honor. Except by the racists and the Nazis. When people insist it "wasn't about slavery" I recommend reading the actual declarations of secession. Each one describes slavery as a clear objective. And/or the Cornerstone Speech, or any real discussion of the day. The rewrites started with the largely successful attempts to salvage white supremacy in the South after it was subdued militarily. The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 25, 2017 17:58:35 GMT
When people insist it "wasn't about slavery" I recommend reading the actual declarations of secession. Each one describes slavery as a clear objective. And/or the Cornerstone Speech, or any real discussion of the day. The rewrites started with the largely successful attempts to salvage white supremacy in the South after it was subdued militarily. The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. Which brings us right back around the the timing of the statues popping up honoring confederate leaders, to the exclusion of Mahone, a curiously "pro-equality" former commander.
|
|