Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#21 Dec 7, 2012
I recommend that you start with Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals if you want to know the sentiments in the country at the time of the civil war. There were some abolitionists in the country who advocated for full rights for blacks but they were few.
capitalist pig

Beckley, WV

#22 Dec 7, 2012
Lesson Learned wrote:
I recommend that you start with Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals if you want to know the sentiments in the country at the time of the civil war. There were some abolitionists in the country who advocated for full rights for blacks but they were few.
I am not a fan of Goodwin. Have read enough of her for a lifetime. Although she is the leading authority in the world on LBJ.
I am quite aware of the sentiments of the country at the time. 500,000 of our citizens gave up their lives and Lincoln and Sherman waged war on women and chidren to make sure that the south was kept in place to provide cheap natural rescources to the northern factories. Slavery was the emotional issue use to fuel the flames of war.
It is kind of ironic that slavery was abolished to benefit the rich capitalists of the north. Fortunately for the slaves there were enough people of conscience to make slavery an emotional issue that people were willing to die for. But make no mistake, cheap cotton and other natural resources from the south were the reasons for the Civil War. The south wanted lower tariffs so they could export their products, the north needed them high to protect our infant manufacturing industry.
So if you want to thank someone for freeing the slaves, thank the robber barrons, not Lincoln.
On the other hand, thank Lincoln for saving the union. Had America split, the results would have been awful and this country could have never become a great world power and the greates force for good the world have ever know. Warts and All.

This idea of Lincoln being totally commited to the abolishment of slavery is total fiction. Lincoln opposed slavery, but would have accepted its continuation if that was the only way he could have saved the union.
capitalist pig

Beckley, WV

#23 Dec 7, 2012
Another issue that is completely overlooked is that the original colonies entered into the Union with the belief that they would be able to leave the union if it did not work out.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#24 Dec 7, 2012
capitalist pig wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a fan of Goodwin. Have read enough of her for a lifetime. Although she is the leading authority in the world on LBJ.
I am quite aware of the sentiments of the country at the time. 500,000 of our citizens gave up their lives and Lincoln and Sherman waged war on women and chidren to make sure that the south was kept in place to provide cheap natural rescources to the northern factories. Slavery was the emotional issue use to fuel the flames of war.
It is kind of ironic that slavery was abolished to benefit the rich capitalists of the north. Fortunately for the slaves there were enough people of conscience to make slavery an emotional issue that people were willing to die for. But make no mistake, cheap cotton and other natural resources from the south were the reasons for the Civil War. The south wanted lower tariffs so they could export their products, the north needed them high to protect our infant manufacturing industry.
So if you want to thank someone for freeing the slaves, thank the robber barrons, not Lincoln.
On the other hand, thank Lincoln for saving the union. Had America split, the results would have been awful and this country could have never become a great world power and the greates force for good the world have ever know. Warts and All.
This idea of Lincoln being totally commited to the abolishment of slavery is total fiction. Lincoln opposed slavery, but would have accepted its continuation if that was the only way he could have saved the union.
You desperately need to read Team of Rivals because you have some great big holes in your argument. There are extensive quotes in the book from actual articles, letters, and diaries written at the time. But we've had this argument before and nothing has changed your opinion (your opinion, not facts) so I won't bother reiterating the actual truth.

BTW, where do you get the opinions that you state here? I would actually like to know if you have supporting documentation (regardless of how slanted it may be) or if you just decide on your own what is the truth.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25 Dec 7, 2012
capitalist pig wrote:
Another issue that is completely overlooked is that the original colonies entered into the Union with the belief that they would be able to leave the union if it did not work out.
"George Washington, writing to John Jay in 1786, said, "We have, probably, had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation." He underlined his words for emphasis. Jay himself felt the country had to become "one nation in every respect." Alexander Hamilton felt "the prospect of a number of petty states, with appearance only of union," was something "diminutive and contemptible."

In May 1787, a Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Some Americans felt it was an aristocratic plot, but every state felt a need to do something to improve the situation, and smaller states felt a stronger central government could protect them against domination by the larger states. What emerged was a new constitution "in order to provide a more perfect union." It established the three branches of the federal government—executive, legislative, and judicial—and provided for two houses within the legislature. That Constitution, though amended 27 times, has governed the United States of America ever since. It failed to clearly address two critical issues, however.

It made no mention of the future of slavery.(The Northwest Ordinance, not the Constitution, prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories, that area north of the Ohio River and along the upper Mississippi River.) It also did not include any provision for a procedure by which a state could withdraw from the Union, or by which the Union could be wholly dissolved. To have included such provisions would have been, as some have pointed out, to have written a suicide clause into the Constitution."

http://www.historynet.com/secession

It appears your comment might not be factual. Just how long has it been since you read any history? Maybe you need a refresher course.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#26 Dec 7, 2012
capitalist pig wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe they should be. the have lost two elections in a row fooling around with social issues and not having the backbone to stand up and call Obama out for what he really is.
They had the perfect formula for success in 2010 and abandonded it in 2012. If they are going to nominate some weak kneed milton milk toast again in 2012, to hell with them. The republican party is ripe with young, talented leaders, they need to overthrow Boehner and McConnell and run a party of integrity or better still start a new party.
I think the republicans have just as good as a chance in 2016 as the dems. Who are the dems going to replace Obama with? Who are they going to get for the the hispanics, blacks, and women come out in droves to vote for? Personally, I think it is going to be a challege for the democratic party to fill Obama's shoes. If it is Hillary ...I don't see it. It might be possible but alot of people are disenchanted with her. The swing voters are the ones I'm refering to. And considering the young voters??? will they feel as compelled to support her as they felt about young Obama?
informed citizen

Beckley, WV

#27 Dec 7, 2012
Good observations of what Goodwin left out of her copy/paste, or as LL stated "extensive quotes" history:(btw, she currently does a much better job of avoiding the plagiarism charges of her previous works by giving credit when she "takes" other's work that she extensively incorporates into "her" history-writing.

The myth of 'Rivals'

"Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet," is the way Obama has summarized Goodwin's thesis, adding, "Whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis."

That's true enough, but the problem is, it didn't work that well for Lincoln. There were painful trade-offs with the "team of rivals" approach that are never fully addressed in the book, or by others that offer happy-sounding descriptions of the Lincoln presidency.

Lincoln's decision to embrace former rivals, for instance, inevitably meant ignoring old friends -- a development they took badly.

Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term -- one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/18/opini...

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#28 Dec 7, 2012
capitalist pig wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a fan of Goodwin. Have read enough of her for a lifetime. Although she is the leading authority in the world on LBJ.
I am quite aware of the sentiments of the country at the time. 500,000 of our citizens gave up their lives and Lincoln and Sherman waged war on women and chidren to make sure that the south was kept in place to provide cheap natural rescources to the northern factories. Slavery was the emotional issue use to fuel the flames of war.
It is kind of ironic that slavery was abolished to benefit the rich capitalists of the north. Fortunately for the slaves there were enough people of conscience to make slavery an emotional issue that people were willing to die for. But make no mistake, cheap cotton and other natural resources from the south were the reasons for the Civil War. The south wanted lower tariffs so they could export their products, the north needed them high to protect our infant manufacturing industry.
So if you want to thank someone for freeing the slaves, thank the robber barrons, not Lincoln.
On the other hand, thank Lincoln for saving the union. Had America split, the results would have been awful and this country could have never become a great world power and the greates force for good the world have ever know. Warts and All.
This idea of Lincoln being totally commited to the abolishment of slavery is total fiction. Lincoln opposed slavery, but would have accepted its continuation if that was the only way he could have saved the union.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." A. Lincoln

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#29 Dec 7, 2012
vanished wrote:
<quoted text> I think the republicans have just as good as a chance in 2016 as the dems. Who are the dems going to replace Obama with? Who are they going to get for the the hispanics, blacks, and women come out in droves to vote for? Personally, I think it is going to be a challege for the democratic party to fill Obama's shoes. If it is Hillary ...I don't see it. It might be possible but alot of people are disenchanted with her. The swing voters are the ones I'm refering to. And considering the young voters??? will they feel as compelled to support her as they felt about young Obama?
If Hillary decides to run she will win. Who would the Republicans run against her. JEB is the only heavyweight Republican and he's cursed by the Bush name. Of course someone else could come to the forefront in four years but right now I don't see anyone.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#30 Dec 7, 2012
informed citizen wrote:
Good observations of what Goodwin left out of her copy/paste, or as LL stated "extensive quotes" history:(btw, she currently does a much better job of avoiding the plagiarism charges of her previous works by giving credit when she "takes" other's work that she extensively incorporates into "her" history-writing.
The myth of 'Rivals'
"Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet," is the way Obama has summarized Goodwin's thesis, adding, "Whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis."
That's true enough, but the problem is, it didn't work that well for Lincoln. There were painful trade-offs with the "team of rivals" approach that are never fully addressed in the book, or by others that offer happy-sounding descriptions of the Lincoln presidency.
Lincoln's decision to embrace former rivals, for instance, inevitably meant ignoring old friends -- a development they took badly.
Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term -- one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust."
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/18/opini...
Of the four rivals....Seward, Stanton, Chase & Bates, only Bates and Chase left during his first term. Chase had resigned several times to gain leverage and finally Lincoln surprised him by accepting his resignation in 1864 because he (Lincoln) had already been nominated for a second term and the Treasury was on a good footing. But then Lincoln nominated Chase to be chief justice of the Supreme Court....and Bates, who had wanted the job and also because he was old and wanted to go home, resigned. Chase continued to try to get the presidential nomination even after he was on the Supreme Court. He's not a very admirable person. If you had read Team of Rivals you might have more knowledge about the subject...but I doubt it. It would be wasted on you.

BTW, how else do you write about history except by reading and quoting contemporary accounts? Every history I have ever read uses the same format.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#31 Dec 7, 2012
Shootist wrote:
<quoted text>
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." A. Lincoln
Lincoln initially favored colonization for the slaves but by the end of the war his view had changed completely, as evidenced by the 13th Amendment to the Constition

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#32 Dec 7, 2012
Lesson Learned wrote:
<quoted text>
If Hillary decides to run she will win. Who would the Republicans run against her. JEB is the only heavyweight Republican and he's cursed by the Bush name. Of course someone else could come to the forefront in four years but right now I don't see anyone.
You don't see anyone "right now" but no one had heard of Barak Obama in 2007. He beat out Hillary, their own party. I think it will be hard for Hillary to do as Barak...Not saying I have a crstal ball but will Hillary bring out the voters as Obama has? I don't think so. The balcks wont vote for her because she's black. They wont feel as compelled to even vote for her where as they were banded together for their black Obama.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#33 Dec 7, 2012
Barack

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#34 Dec 7, 2012
vanished wrote:
<quoted text>You don't see anyone "right now" but no one had heard of Barak Obama in 2007. He beat out Hillary, their own party. I think it will be hard for Hillary to do as Barak...Not saying I have a crstal ball but will Hillary bring out the voters as Obama has? I don't think so. The balcks wont vote for her because she's black. They wont feel as compelled to even vote for her where as they were banded together for their black Obama.
You've probably forgotten that Obama gave a speech at the 2004 Democrat convention that received accolades. But as you say, anything can happen in four years. What makes you think that blacks won't vote for Hillary...with Obama and Bill campaigning for her? I think you're wrong. But the big question is who would the Republicans run against her who could beat her...no one right now. Who knows in 4 years.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#35 Dec 7, 2012
Lesson Learned wrote:
<quoted text>
You've probably forgotten that Obama gave a speech at the 2004 Democrat convention that received accolades. But as you say, anything can happen in four years. What makes you think that blacks won't vote for Hillary...with Obama and Bill campaigning for her? I think you're wrong. But the big question is who would the Republicans run against her who could beat her...no one right now. Who knows in 4 years.
I think blacks will vote for her. They just won't be AS motivated to do for her as they did for Barack. Obama got those people to get out and vote, as CP said, it was masterfully done.:) I agree with you, the next four years...Who knows?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#36 Dec 7, 2012
vanished wrote:
<quoted text> I think blacks will vote for her. They just won't be AS motivated to do for her as they did for Barack. Obama got those people to get out and vote, as CP said, it was masterfully done.:) I agree with you, the next four years...Who knows?
Having once demonstrated their clout it might become a habit. But I think Hillary could win regardless if blacks vote in the same numbers. Obama also won the latino vote, single women, and young people, plus a lot of people would vote for Hillary who wouldn't vote for Obama.
capitalist pig

Lubbock, TX

#37 Dec 7, 2012
Lesson Learned wrote:
<quoted text>
You desperately need to read Team of Rivals because you have some great big holes in your argument. There are extensive quotes in the book from actual articles, letters, and diaries written at the time. But we've had this argument before and nothing has changed your opinion (your opinion, not facts) so I won't bother reiterating the actual truth.
BTW, where do you get the opinions that you state here? I would actually like to know if you have supporting documentation (regardless of how slanted it may be) or if you just decide on your own what is the truth.
When the treaty of paris was signed, 13 new nations were created, they then used the articles of confederation to unite the states which did not work. when the constitution was created, 3 states actually reserved the right to secceed. they southern states did not attempt to overthrow the government, they simply left the union and reasserted thier independence that they never gave up in the first place. By 1860 almost 75% of the federal revenue in the US was being raised in the south, but almost 75% of the money was being spent in the north.
The south once again felt the victims of taxation without representation and withdrew from the union. The Republicans under Lincoln ignored history and the constitution and waged war against women and children in the south.
The real problem with the story of the civil war is that like all wars, the victors get to write the history. Funny that you should ask how long it has been since I read history. My history, unlike yours does not change.
You might want to take note of a couple of little facts. Jefferson Davis was charged with treason, but never went to trial. The Republicans could not afford for him to be acquitted or even worse get an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court. To re-enter the union, the southern states had to give up their right to secceed. How could they give up a right they did not have.
Horace Greely, one of the leading newsmen of the day, often opined that the right to seceed existed. In his opionion if 3 million colonists had the right to seceed from England, how could 5 million southerners not have the right to seceed.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#38 Dec 7, 2012
What is the basis for your opinions? I would like to take a look at your source materials.

"While factories were built all over the North and South, the vast majority of industrial manufacturing was taking place in the North. The South had almost 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital in 1860. The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North.
The labor forces in the South and North were fundamentally different, as well. In the North, labor was expensive, and workers were mobile and active. The influx of immigrants from Europe and Asia provided competition in the labor market, however, keeping wages from growing very quickly. The Southern economy, however, was built on the labor of African American slaves, who were oppressed into providing cheap labor. Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters. Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves."

"At the foundation of the "Southern way of life," however, was its oppressive economic system. In addition to reducing millions of Americans to the status of chattel, it made it very difficult for non-landed, unskilled Whites to succeed in the face of labor competition from slaves."

http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERIC...

These facts coincide with every history I have ever read of the country leading up to the Civil War. You need to stop reading those red state history books and stick with reputable sources.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#39 Dec 7, 2012
"Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion.
After enduring two years of imprisonment and nearly four years of uncertainty, Davis became a free man. The incomplete prosecution of his case and others’ gave clear indication that the government intended Reconstruction to realign southern society rather than punish a select few leaders for causing the rebellion."

http://johnib.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/decemb...

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#40 Dec 7, 2012
"During the Civil War Greeley’s attitudes were controversial. He originally believed the southern states should be allowed to secede, but he eventually came to support the war fully. In August 1862 he published an editorial titled “The Prayer of Twenty Millions” that called for the emancipation of the slaves.

Though Greeley’s political background was with the fairly conservative Whig Party, he advanced opinions which deviated from Whig orthodoxy. He supported women's rights and labor, and opposed monopolies.

In the 1850s Greeley published editorials denouncing slavery, and eventually supported full abolition. Greeley wrote denunciations of the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott Decision. "

http://history1800s.about.com/od/americanorig...

All of these facts are corroborated in Goodwin's Team of Rivals.

Kind of makes you wonder what were his conservative opinions....lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beckley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
rachel simmons losing 5 kids 4 are in foster ca... 8 min Ricky 2
did you get your eyes full yesterday in lewisbu... 24 min tristan 17
John 4Nash 43 min BullDawg304 13
Confidential Beckley info being shared on FB 2 hr Heardithere 1
Need auto body repair 4 hr Just Me 11
Oak Hill Cop gets what he deserves 4 hr wickerbill 8
wheres justin gray 5 hr tristan 4
Help with Chistmas 9 hr Chris Honrado 42
Beckley Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Beckley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Beckley News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beckley

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:22 pm PST

NBC Sports12:22PM
Gano eager for another chance vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
Yahoo! Sports12:56 PM
Youth movement fueling Pittsburgh turnaround
Bleacher Report 3:49 AM
Breaking Down Steelers' Game Plan vs. Bengals
NBC Sports 4:53 AM
Panthers coach and family replaced gifts for break-in victims
NBC Sports 7:47 AM
Le'Veon Bell: It's "pick your poison" against Steelers offense