So you miss Reagan because of his style, Houston?
Also, Historical Revisionism that tries to claim something other then Slavery as the cause of the American Civil War simply cannot be supported by evidence. Bringing up States Rights is interesting, given that the only issue around States Rights was the continued right to own slaves.
Slavery was an issue but to suggest that the actual war was fought to "free the slaves" is a fallacy. Besides, slavery would have faded away anyway and with far fewer consequences if the South had been allowed to do so, on its own terms (read up on what Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis thought of slavery and what they thought would eventfully happen). And if you insist on branding the South as the bad guys solely over the issue of slavery then you'll need to roll back the clock a little to the American Revolution and brand the colonials as "evil incarnate" as well.
|
Also, Historical Revisionism that tries to claim something other then Slavery as the cause of the American Civil War simply cannot be supported by evidence. Bringing up States Rights is interesting, given that the only issue around States Rights was the continued right to own slaves.
Well, first off: individuals have rights, states have powers.
Second, in a letter to Horace Greely in 1862 Linclon stated:
"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"
There are records of many other similar statements. Statements that were never taught in grammar or high school when I attended.
In addition the issue of "states rights" you mention was not about slavery. It was about voluntary involvment in the union. The states delegated powers to the union as their agent but retained soveriegnty. Lincoln rejected that notion and held the states were subordinate to the union.
I miss Winston Churchill.
...and Margaret Thatcher.
|
Slavery was an issue but to suggest that the actual war was fought to "free the slaves" is a fallacy. Besides, slavery would have faded away anyway and with far fewer consequences if the South had been allowed to do so, on its own terms (read up on what Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis thought of slavery and what they thought would eventfully happen). And if you insist on branding the South as the bad guys solely over the issue of slavery then you'll need to roll back the clock a little to the American Revolution and brand the colonials as "evil incarnate" as well.So you miss Reagan because of his style, Houston?
Also, Historical Revisionism that tries to claim something other then Slavery as the cause of the American Civil War simply cannot be supported by evidence. Bringing up States Rights is interesting, given that the only issue around States Rights was the continued right to own slaves.
I do not recall saying the war was fought to 'free the slaves', at least at the start. The War was started as the Slave Owning States feared the Northern, free land states gaining more power in the Union, something added to by the Compromise of 1850, which ensured that new states being added to the Union would be non-Slave owning.
It's amusing that you bring up Lee and Davis. It's clear from others in power in the Confederacy that Slavery was the key cause. Read Stephen's Cornerstone Speech and it's constant references to Slavery. Or you could just look at the Confederate Constitution, which states:
'No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed'
Only after the War did the idea that States Rights were the main cause appear. Further, the Slave Owners seemed quite happy to have Federal Powers override State Rights when it favoured them, in circumstances such as the Fugitive State Act of 1850.
|
|
Also, exactly which of Lee's views would you be wanting to bring up?
"... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
That's his letter to his wife. It should also be noted that Lee was only ever aware of slavery at it's 'best'. He spent many years in the border states and never saw the true evils of slavery on the cotton plantations.
Was he? He's responsible for the loss of over 600,000 lives the last I checked. He violated the constitution and his ranking officers were either incompetent or war criminals. He didn't win the war through skill but attrition. Sounds like a great guy.Lincoln was better.Lincoln was the best.damn right.
I recently saw him fighting side by side with Jim Kirk.
I wasn't impressed.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I entered college a few months before Reagan entered office. I'd agree with Kirth: Regan's first term had its problems (he was the first president to send to congress an budget that exploded the national debt. If you don't like the huge chunk of the current budget we pay on interest on the debt, Reagan's the man to point to.) but was not the disaster that many feared.
The second term, filled with scandal and mired in difficulties he simply didn't have the skills to address, was miserable.
If you reduce Reagan to sound bites, he comes off as better than he was. During debates, he would have a pack of little index cards, which held a pithy saying and a talking point for each likely topic. If his opponents pressed him on a topic, he would simply repeat what he had on his card.
"Welfare queens" was a talking point, entirely fictional.
"Trees release more carbon monoxide than all the cars in America" was a talking point.
"The Contras are the moral equivalents of the founding fathers" was a talking point.
When forced off the likely topics, Reagan was unable to articulate specific responses to questions posed to him. Hence the "Before I ignore your questions, ..."
He as derided as an actor playing the part of a President, but that's not quite fair. He did understand a lot of things that Carter, for example, did not. He understood that attitude and confidence were important. As Derek notes, he knew what it meant to project the image of a president. And he honestly enjoyed working with Congress, during that first term.
But Reagan didn't have the intellectual chops to make fine distinctions. He made a frightening number of decisions based on astrology. The Iran-Contra Affair indicated that he was, in fact, stinking of corruption. (And no, I don't buy for a second that operations of that magnitude, including secret arms sales, would be going on behind his back.)
I miss Firefly.
+1
|
for those who miss firefly,....
check out this Green Lantern fan made trailer. Not a real movie, but I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally wish it was.
|
|
Only after the War did the idea that States Rights were the main cause appear. Further, the Slave Owners seemed quite happy to have Federal Powers override State Rights when it favoured them, in circumstances such as the Fugitive State Act of 1850.
Absolutely not true.
On November 13, 1860 the Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated in an editorial:
the union "depends for it's continuance on the free consent and will of the soveriegn people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their union is gone"
The New York Journal of Commerce stated on Jan 12, 1861 that a coerced union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are soveriegns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"
It should be noted that many northern newspapers had similar editorials. It should also be noted Lincoln shut down 300+ newspapers during the war that disagreed with him.
In addition, General Lee freed the slaves he inherited when he married George Washingtons great grand daughter Mary Curtis before the Civil War began, per his father in laws will. Interestingly several Union generals did not free their slaves until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868.
The real cause of the war were purly economic. The moral component of the slavery issue was peripheral at best. The real problem for the south was taxation. They were paying 87 percent of all tarriffs collected to the federal government in 1860. The north, with it's growing industy wanted to sell it's products to the south. So the north, controlling congress due to it's greater population, passed tarrifs that would compell the south to buy products from the north (at higher prices than from overseas) and sell raw materials to the north (at less profit than if sold overseas).
So, Lincoln was for bigger taxation (high tariffs), social engineering (using taxation to modify behavior) and redistribution of wealth (using taxation to transfer wealth from one group to another).
The anti Reagan if ever one existed.
The anti Reagan if ever one existed.
He probably knew how to correctly use apostrophes, however.
So, Lincoln was for bigger taxation (high tariffs), social engineering (using taxation to modify behavior) and redistribution of wealth (using taxation to transfer wealth from one group to...
How very republican of him... take from the poor and give to the rich...
(Several of your facts about taxation are off though.)
|
|
So, Lincoln was for bigger taxation (high tariffs), social engineering (using taxation to modify behavior) and redistribution of wealth (using taxation to transfer wealth from one group to...How very republican of him... take from the poor and give to the rich...
(Several of your facts about taxation are off though.)
Feel free to correct me.
But my impression of the economic conflict of the day was less like anti Robin Hood (your "How very republican..." statement) and more like growing economic power (industrialized north hungry for raw materials) using the government to subjugate the established economic power (the agriculture based south that did not need the northern markets as they had plenty of buyers elswhere). So the south said "we don't need you, leave us alone" and Lincoln said "you will OBEYYYYYYY MYYY AU-THOR-i-TEY"(south park voice off).
Well like most things it comes down to impressions more than actual facts.
First off the north paid a larger percentage of the taxes. More goods and more expensive goods and a higher population base means they were paying more, in addition it was cheaper to make northern made products simply because they were closer and they were cheaper to produce. Additionally the states had more control of taxation back then too, if the southerners were paying more it was usually because their state was charging tax wise.
Finally While the north were paying more of the taxes the south was poorer so a higher percentage of their income went to their taxes even if taxed at an even rate as the north making them feel like they were getting taxed more, even if it wasn't the case.
It was a classic example of self righteous self pity more than anything else. That and a good dose of wishful thinking about how it would be different if they were in charge (when generally they were) added to the ignorance of the situation economically lead exactly where we landed.
And what does any of this have to do with the OP? Nutin'. Just my 2cp.
Actually everything. If you stick to the soundbite the impression Reagan gives off is great. If you start to look at what he did, without those sound bits he looks stupid. If you put them together and look at the whole he comes off as what he was, a president.
|
|
This is why I miss Reagan.
What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term—the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the
freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. . . .I have often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. . . .
Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best—a crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation.
. . . Let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.
|
|
Only after the War did the idea that States Rights were the main cause appear. Further, the Slave Owners seemed quite happy to have Federal Powers override State Rights when it favoured them, in circumstances such as the Fugitive State Act of 1850.Absolutely not true.
On November 13, 1860 the Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated in an editorial:
the union "depends for it's continuance on the free consent and will of the soveriegn people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their union is gone"
The New York Journal of Commerce stated on Jan 12, 1861 that a coerced union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are soveriegns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"
It should be noted that many northern newspapers had similar editorials. It should also be noted Lincoln shut down 300+ newspapers during the war that disagreed with him.
In addition, General Lee freed the slaves he inherited when he married George Washingtons great grand daughter Mary Curtis before the Civil War began, per his father in laws will. Interestingly several Union generals did not free their slaves until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868.
The real cause of the war were purly economic. The moral component of the slavery issue was peripheral at best. The real problem for the south was taxation. They were paying 87 percent of all tarriffs collected to the federal government in 1860. The north, with it's growing industy wanted to sell it's products to the south. So the north, controlling congress due to it's greater population, passed tarrifs that would compell the south to buy products from the north (at higher prices than from overseas) and sell raw materials to the north (at less profit than if sold overseas).
So, Lincoln was for bigger taxation (high tariffs), social engineering (using taxation to modify behavior) and redistribution of wealth (using taxation to transfer wealth from one group to...
Firstly, regarding Lee, he freed the slaves he inherited in his role as an executor of the Curtis estate, but only after 5 years, 2 months and 11 days of working them on a slave plantation he owned. The Curtis Will laid down the expectation that they should be emancipated within a five year period, not worked as slave labour, only to be eventually freed in 1862.
Lincoln, when elected in 1860, did not intend to end slavery immediately, but he did intend to prevent it's spread to new states entering the union, and perhaps eventually phase out slavery. The South feared the end of slavery, it being the basis for their economy, and further morally feared the idea of the Black Man being an equal. They justified the inferiority of their slaves in Biblical terms, with the White Man's Burden (as seen in the quote I took from Lee above)
Of course, there are plenty of other sources from speeches made at Secession Conferences, or the actual Declarations, that put Slavery at the forefront for the reasons to secede. Here we can see the Texan reasons for seceding, and slavery is the one most prominently mentioned. Lines such as
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
And
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
Also
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Make it clear just why exactly Texas seceded. It's further interesting to note that taxes, tariffs or other economic measures are not mentioned in the document. Then there's E.S. Dargan's speech to the Secession Convention of Alabama, where he says plainly:
Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
He even goes onto say that if the abolition of Slavery only left them poor, he could cope with that, but as it would make the Black man equal to the Whites, that he couldn't abide.
Slavery is repeatedly mentioned as the cause for secession by the Southern States, both by their leaders, in their documents of secession and in other places. The right to own slaves was guaranteed by the Confederate Constitution. A few other newspapers and the like may have given alternate views at the time, but they are rather irrelevant compared to Stephen's views, of the Confederate Constitution itself. It's really quite simply. Slavery was the cause of the American Civil War. All the evidence points that way, and to suggest otherwise is revisionism.
|
|
Hey David and houstonderek... do you think a lot of people are missing the point?I certainly do! But when people suggest something as utterly wrong as 'Slavery wasn't the cause of the American Civil War', I get a little mad. ;) I am a History Major, after all!
Slavery was not the cause of the civil war. It was an attempt to make the war into a moral issue, and as such it was a success. The war was about the power of a centralized government or the power of individual states. I am sorry if you disagree but if so I suggest you find another past time because on this you are wrong.
My favorite Reagan moment.
You should be shot for that CH. That's worse than a Rickroll. ;)
Hey David and houstonderek... do you think a lot of people are missing the point?I certainly do! But when people suggest something as utterly wrong as 'Slavery wasn't the cause of the American Civil War', I get a little mad. ;) I am a History Major, after all!
You do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation freed not one slave, right? Not only did Lincoln not have the power to make such a sweeping gesture but slaves were still legal in all federally controlled areas. Lincoln basically was trying to start a slave revolt (which didn't happen) with his unlawful "proclamation"; of course the targets of this intended revolt would have been woman and children left undefended. As with Sherman's March to the Sea, this was another direct attack on the civilian population of the South. Good 'Ol Abe!
|
|
Hey David and houstonderek... do you think a lot of people are missing the point?I certainly do! But when people suggest something as utterly wrong as 'Slavery wasn't the cause of the American Civil War', I get a little mad. ;) I am a History Major, after all!
Slavery was not the cause. Economic domination and consolidation of political power was.
Since Lincoln was brought up, and I recall Reagan being compared to Lincoln when he was in office, I did try to show the differences.
I would say if you look long and hard at the two, Reagan was a great man, Lincoln not so much. In fact few presidents could be seen as more opposite in terms of their actions and beliefs.
In one way they are very similar - they have been reduced to a series of soundbites and simplifications that make them out to be larger than life.
Why miss Ronald Reagan? He restored America to it's preeminent status in the world at a time when we were on the way down the drain. He gave punk rockers someone to hate. He had a GREAT sense of humor. He knew how to work a deal and it was never personal. He took on the Soviet Union and broke them. He did many wonderful things in 8 years. And a few bad (the union busting was a dark point in American history). But he always stuck to his values while he was doing it.
Lincoln, preserved the Union, nuff said.
Slavery was not the cause of the civil war. It was an attempt to make the war into a moral issue, and as such it was a success. The war was about the power of a centralized government or the power of individual states. I am sorry if you disagree but if so I suggest you find another past time because on this you are wrong.
Yes, all the bodies who declared their purposes in secession were just lying.
Reagan never appeared as knowledgeable and presidential as when he cited trees as a major source of pollution. Brilliance.
|
|
Liked Reagan, but in the end we are still in trouble with the oil. Had we gone for alternative energy back then, we would be a total different country. As it stands, we are insanely dependent on other countries and that is incredibly dangerous because we are in a position where we are forced to take what we need. I feel like the country is living in a bubble that will soon burst.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Liked Reagan, but in the end we are still in trouble with the oil. Had we gone for alternative energy back then, we would be a total different country. As it stands, we are insanely dependent on other countries and that is incredibly dangerous because we are in a position where we are forced to take what we need. I feel like the country is living in a bubble that will soon burst.
Okay, I know this is totally off topic, but a Reagan sponsored Dark Energy Race would make for a really cool alternative history setting. I'm just saying.
|
My favorite Reagan moment.You should be shot for that CH. That's worse than a Rickroll. ;)
You're welcome.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Some thoughts:
* No slavery, no secession. It was the fear of abolition that lead to secession after the election results. So saying the war wasn't about slavery is disingenuous. There were other factors, but slavery tied nearly all of them together.
* The theory that "slavery would have passed" is specious. Yes, it would have, by being outlawed - that is how slavery passes on, with changes of law over the protests of slaveowners. When the South left the union rather than face up to that likelyhood, they rejected slavery passing on. When they fired upon Fort Sumter, they also ruled out any chance at a peaceful resolution.
* It certainly isn't clear-cut that states had the right to leave. The fact that it was left out of the constitution suggests it wasn't intended to be allowed other than by modification of that document. I'm not aware of many modern nations that allow secession, though I'm sure a few such exist.
I liked Bush Sr. Reagan's 1st term was better than his 2nd.
Surgical use of armed force on an as-needed basis sits with me a lot better than selling arms to our enemies in order to finance drug dealers (either Reagan knew about Iran-Contra, and was thus a scumbag in my book, or else he didn't, and was thus too senile to lead).
I love you Kirth, but I hate the term you've just used. Surgical strike. (1) As if it really is surgical.... (2) As if it really does eliminate collateral damage.
They borrow a term from medicine and use it for killing. Nice one.
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I miss Firefly.+2
+3
So when the North attacked the South, with out provocation, their only goal was to free the slaves. Had the South just ended slavery at the outset of the conflict, the North would have removed it's troops from the South and we would have lived happily ever after as two countries.
|
|
Top five causes for the civil war
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
So while slavery was an issue it was not as others have sought to hard to prove and have fallen down trying to, the one and only issue. It was not even the top issue. In fact in many ways it was as a side effect of the changing culture at the time.
Some thoughts:
* No slavery, no secession. It was the fear of abolition that lead to secession after the election results. So saying the war wasn't about slavery is disingenuous. There were other factors, but slavery tied nearly all of them together.
* The theory that "slavery would have passed" is specious. Yes, it would have, by being outlawed - that is how slavery passes on, with changes of law over the protests of slaveowners. When the South left the union rather than face up to that likelyhood, they rejected slavery passing on. When they fired upon Fort Sumter, they also ruled out any chance at a peaceful resolution.
* It certainly isn't clear-cut that states had the right to leave. The fact that it was left out of the constitution suggests it wasn't intended to be allowed other than by modification of that document. I'm not aware of many modern nations that allow secession, though I'm sure a few such exist.
Look at the New York Draft riots for the Northern reaction that the war was all about slaves.
And Fort Sumter was yet another calculated move by Lincoln. The Confederates tried to use diplomacy (which Lincoln out and out rejected at every turn) so were forced to make a discussion or whether they wanted a Federal Fort brisling with guns (and more were coming) over looking a major port city. Under the circumstances the Confederates had no choice in the matter.But what gets me is that everyone keeps putting the cause of the war squarely on the shoulders of the South when all they were doing was exorcising their rights as sovereign states. The question that should be focused on is-- 'why did the North invade the South?’ What if the South had said "Ok, we'll give up slavery right now, but we're still going our own way", do you honestly think the war wouldn't have happened? Slavery was one of many cultural factors that divided the North and South during that time period and yes it became a poster child that illustrated that difference--BUT IT WASN'T THE CAUSE OF THE WAR. The Unions unwillingness to allow the Confederacy to peacefully go its own way was the cause of the war. If the North had acknowledged those rights there would have been no war.
Gee, what's next? Holocaust denial?
<tip toes out>