Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative
I saw that one too. It is probably better than this movie.
Actually, the author did a heckuva lot of historical work to tie in the real history with the vampire story.
Right.
Why would ANY conservative give money to liberal Hollywood? It’s nuts. Let’s show more pride than paying the kapo to beat us.
Reagan was OK. I don’t like that he gave us amnesty for millions of illegals and the machine gun ban of 1986. His pressidential library is in California, not Illinos. Perhaps he considered himself a Californian?
Yes, yes, state's rights, industrial tarriffs, property rights, the 10th amendment, etc etc; but every single argument resolved down to slavery and the economics built upon it.
I'm with you on this - anyone who thinks it wasn't 'slavery' needs to read the Lincoln/Douglas debates... It was only the war that ended the evil of slavery and it was Lincoln that made certain that slavery was ended.
Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
McClellan was a coward and traitor pure and simple. Furthermore, he ran against Lincoln as...a Democrat!
I'm with you on this - anyone who thinks it wasn't 'slavery' needs to read the Lincoln/Douglas debates... You're right - Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
Another producer, writer faux historian making a buck off of reconstructed history, the Lincoln Fairy Tale™. Sic semper tyrannis.
And I think you're blowing smoke. All the nuancing in the world will not cause me to ignore the obvious.
You cannot separate the tariff issue from the slavery issue, they are connected
Thank you
Why did a South in which only a relative minority owned slaves go to war to keep slavery as an expression of its supposed state sovereignty? For the South, freeing the slaves was recognized to be the end of one set of familiar problems and the beginning of other problems with no clear solutions -- problems that would affect every white Southerner, not just the slave holders.
First, once the slaves were freed, how would they house, clothe, and feed themselves, and how would the South's rural plantation economy function without their labor? How would slaveholders be compensated?
Second, if empowered with the vote and civil liberties equal to whites, impoverished and ignorant freed slaves could be expected to make their influence felt, resulting in corruption, the election of unsuitable officials, and high spending and taxes. There would be much detriment to whites in general and to the property owning class in particular.
Third, the presence of a large, poor, uneducated, restive and resentful mass of freed Black slaves would give rise to an enduring race problem. Notably, the Northern states were unwilling to accept freed slaves into their own states. That was too much trouble, and trouble of a kind that the South was better equipped to deal with and deserving the burdens of as punishment of a sort of rough justice.
As it was, after the failure of Reconstruction and much turmoil and hardship, the eventual resolution for the Southern agrarian economy was a combination of sharecropping , Black farmers on small free holdings, and a large pool of menial Black servants and laborers useful to Southern whites.
Copying laws from the North, virtually all the South adopted a rigid system of Jim Crow laws and a social code that marginalized Blacks for generations. Literacy and property requirements, poll taxes, and other manipulations that severely restricted the right to vote and ended the brief era of relative Black political power in the South.
Might events have taken a better course if Lincoln had lived? Maybe, maybe not. The profound discontinuity of the Civil War changed the country and changed Lincoln, moving both toward advocating greater equality between the races, while remaining uncomfortable with the many problems of applying the principle in practice.
Thus the Civil War led Lincoln far beyond his previous views as to race, and the failure of his African colonization efforts made clear that country would have to find a new path forward that accepted the permanence of a a massive population of former Black slaves.
Yet the contours of history are not as malleable as they may seem, and it is quite possible -- even likely -- that Reconstruction under Lincoln would have failed like it did under Johnson and Grant.
ditto.
What was the bunch of Yankees telling the residents of SC to do?
They were connected in the fact that the North attempted to use the slavery issue to coerce the South into paying the tariffs/taxes and the South used the slavery issue to ‘fire the Southern heart’ when it was thought that the South could not be brought into unanimity about the tariffs. Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address showed his hand. If the South paid the tariffs/taxes they could keep their slaves. According to Lincoln’s own words the horrid institution of slavery was acceptable but not paying ‘taxes’ meant war.
No, Washington was the greatest. He was "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen"
Absolutely. Sexual slavery, economic slavery, cultural slavery, ideological slavery, etc... It all came with the false flag of freedom.
Maybe he's just tired of this ignorant neoconfederate s___t excreted month after month, year after year.
Just about everybody is at this point.
Fortunately, there are always new people coming in who still have the energy and the interest to dissect this garbage.
Whoever wrote the article has a simplistic view of politics and 19th century American history. Just about everybody who entered major party electoral politics when Lincoln did would have to live with slavery in ways that no one today has to. No one who was elected to major offices could have been a passionate and uncompromising self-professed abolitionist.
It's surprising that Illinois's (not very vigorously enforced) constitutional provision is used to attack Lincoln. Should we then assume that every politician, soldier, or citizen from a slave state was likewise tainted by the policy of his state?
Lincoln's letter to Greeley refers to preserving the union as his "paramount object" not his only intent. It was an expression of his government's policy, not of his private feelings. Obviously, Lincoln's refusal to compromise on the expansion of slavery to the territories indicates that he did have a firm position that he wouldn't compromise on, and the speculation at the time was that slavery couldn't survive without expansion.
Nor was it clear that Lincoln ever intended to "colonize all African Americans." The idea was voluntary colonization. Lincoln's expressed intention in 1865 to extend the right to vote to Black veterans indicates that there was no plan or intention to deport or expel all African-Americans.
Tariffs weren't the cause of secession or of the war. The North wasn't notably less free than the South during the war years. Hostile editors and agitators weren't treated better in the South than in the North. Lincoln didn't start the war, and he certainly didn't "personally directed key activities of the Union Army."
George Armistead's nephew Lewis took up arms against the United States. If his grandson was of the same opinion, was it scandalous or surprising if he was imprisoned? Would he have fared any better if he'd been a self-professed and active unionist in rebel territory?
Lost causers annoy me to no end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.