Poll: Emancipation
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
Lincoln's son or maybe Lincoln's wife certainly didn't want to.
Lincoln's son joined the army only near the end of the war and
was kept away from the front line. They were no average bloke
though.
If I was around at the time I probably would just pay the fee
of $300 for exemption from the draft taking advantage of
Lincoln's Enrollment Act.
Lincoln's son joined the army only near the end of the war and
was kept away from the front line. They were no average bloke
though.
If I was around at the time I probably would just pay the fee
of $300 for exemption from the draft taking advantage of
Lincoln's Enrollment Act.
Last edited:
If you want to know the real feelings up north, read up on the New York draft riots and the pogrom of the blacks in NYC. As for fighting; I would never take up arms for the people who who were not already front and center in the fight. I would definitely join the 50s and 60s struggle for the equal rights and would actively participate as I have done against the commies.
And the destruction of almost all black infrastructure and economy that hasn't recovered for almost a hundred years. Not to mention the "polite" segregation of exclusion. A very dark time. Makes you wonder if the Civil War was worth it, doesn't it?
I think there are many more people in the North who would say slavery is morally indefensible than are willing to risk their life and limbs to back up their talk.
Rather one likes it or not, the Southerners were defending their families, homes and properties.
Question: Why are there statues of General William Tecumseh Sherman? The guy was a butcher.
Rather one likes it or not, the Southerners were defending their families, homes and properties.
Question: Why are there statues of General William Tecumseh Sherman? The guy was a butcher.
Over 750 000 people lost their lives as the result of that conflict. Think about that number, if you're capable of imagining that kind of tragedy. AND consider the simplest of facts that many other countries reached the goal of abolishing slavery without a bloodbath.
He seems to imply it wasn't worth fighting a war over it.
Which, maybe so. If the South hadn't seceded because they absolutely thought Slavery was the most important thing ever, there wouldn't have been a war.
Would it have been better if the war had come earlier - in 1820 or 1850? Did trying to wait it out through compromise help or just delay it and make it more bloody when it finally kicked off?
Tough questions.
If the North had the political will it could have blockaded the
South indefinitely. Slavery by then was abolished in pretty much
the entire western world outside the U.S. International sanctions
via trade embargo against the South should have bought it to
submission. If I had the power to rewrite history I would have
abolitionists instigated uprising of the slaves in the Confederate
states to save the lives of Union and Confederate soldiers.
Even better if that happened 6 to 7 decades earlier. Imagine
how morally uplifting it would be to hear the story of George Washington
having his dental implants obtained by ripping them from mouths of his
slaves knocked out by those he had whipped. Would also be great to read
about how Thomas Jefferson was hacked to pieces in his Monticello
plantation.
South indefinitely. Slavery by then was abolished in pretty much
the entire western world outside the U.S. International sanctions
via trade embargo against the South should have bought it to
submission. If I had the power to rewrite history I would have
abolitionists instigated uprising of the slaves in the Confederate
states to save the lives of Union and Confederate soldiers.
Even better if that happened 6 to 7 decades earlier. Imagine
how morally uplifting it would be to hear the story of George Washington
having his dental implants obtained by ripping them from mouths of his
slaves knocked out by those he had whipped. Would also be great to read
about how Thomas Jefferson was hacked to pieces in his Monticello
plantation.
Stay out of serious conversations, please. Maybe start a thread on Israel; it's been awhile...
The push for abolishion was absolutely necessary, but the resulting war was not. The North explored no other political or economic options simply because it could not because of the Southern representation in Washington and the design of the US system that prevents radical and quick changes. Once the impasse was reached, the war was almost inevitable. It's easy to put a price on the emancipation for those who sacrificed nothing 200 years later. But, I grew up with people who actually experienced massive conflicts, starvation and destruction. And one thing that always struck me was their belief that almost anything was a better alternative to war.
Not only do you need some history lessons, you seem unable to see anything outside of your supposed Eastern European trauma.
Lol!! Keyboard warriors! Ever been in a situation where you were shot at or witnessed people die beside you? I have and you better have very good reason to be there. I hate to break it to you, but bs politicking is not one of those reasons.
Now who’s the keyboard warrior? Anybody can claim they are anything on a keyboard….as you amply demonstrated.
Learn American history, not gild your own lily.
The moment you engage in a conversation instead of constantly attacking me(is it because I'm Chinese?), that's the instance I'll take anything you say without laughing. Until then...
If you insist on talking about yourself, you are a fair topic. Keyboard warriors should take note
A couple of points.
1) The Southern economy was based on slavery at that time. Even the local store keeper who owned no slaves was part of and benefited from that economy.
2) As the war progressed, the Southerners were defending their families, homes and properties. If I had lived in the South at that time, I would also take up arms in defense of my family against a brutal invader. (General Sherman was a butcher.)
"Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln."
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln."
