Left, or Right. What direction will America turn next

Archive. Enter at your own risk. Unmoderated thread.


Moderator: Super Moderators

Linnea
Moderator
Posts: 14985
Joined: 04-22-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Linnea » 06-11-2009 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Cherry Kelly
Joe -- your posts are unique and interesting - whether agreed or disagreed on the content.

===
My personal viewpoint is that we will turn again to families and importance of the family.

Will there be a revolt of some kind - yes, it is inevitable due to the overwhelming economic problems that are creating angst among so many. How the revolt will go - hopefully it will go peacefully. However, I am hearing more and more people complaining about how huge the government has become and feel that fewer and fewer people are really doing honest work. Ya honest - was the term used and what the person who used it meant - is up to those hearing it.

American households lost 1.3T in value in three months - first quarter of this year. That is why I say it is going to be a gathering of families and family will take precedence - just to survive. Then will come the anger at why it happened.


Cherry! When you speak like this, I absolutely agree with you. ;) Very glad you are here with us. On the 'political spectrum' chart that Iris did for us a while back - did you notice we shared the same point on the grid?

The partisan stuff I really don't like at all. But, when it comes to values as these, I agree.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 06-11-2009 03:03 PM

SquidInk wrote: Racehorse - you're a nice guy and all, but the fact that you deny, in the most adamant terms, the existence of the basic human Right of Secession is downright scary.

Image


I can't believe he's equating the Confederates w/ the Nazis! :eek:

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-11-2009 06:27 PM

HB3 wrote: I can't believe he's equating the Confederates w/ the Nazis! :eek:


HB3, I recognize the Nazis were far worse than the Confederates. That does not change my opinion of the Confederate regime as treasonous to the rightful government of the United States and that it held a reprehensible philosophy denying liberty and basic human rights to all people.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
Bellisima
Pirate
Posts: 3474
Joined: 09-13-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Bellisima » 06-11-2009 06:30 PM

racehorse wrote: HB3, I recognize the Nazis were far worse than the Confederates. That does not change my opinion of the Confederate regime as treasonous to the rightful government of the United States and that it held a reprehensible philosophy denying liberty and basic human rights to all people.
Exactly! :)
ImageA silent mouth is sweet to hear.
Irish saying

User avatar
joequinn
Magister Ludi
Posts: 8282
Joined: 04-25-2000 02:00 AM

Post by joequinn » 06-11-2009 06:52 PM

Bellissima, I will always love you for what you said about me above. As I enter old age, the idea of "dying in the state of grace" enters more and more into my mind. What you said above tells me that you believe that that state of grace has always been within me and is within me still. I needed to hear that belief from outside myself, and I will always love you for saying it.

:D :D :D

And now back to our regularly scheduled disinformation, um, I mean, programming...
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 06-11-2009 07:11 PM

racehorse wrote: HB3, I recognize the Nazis were far worse than the Confederates. That does not change my opinion of the Confederate regime as treasonous to the rightful government of the United States and that it held a reprehensible philosophy denying liberty and basic human rights to all people.


You mean slavery? I thought that wasn't what it was really about, etc? And: do you really think that institution would've survived long after a Confederate victory? I can't imagine that. I'm obviously a neophyte in my understanding here.

And surely the culture was about more than that? What would Margaret Mitchell say?

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-11-2009 07:27 PM

HB3 wrote: You mean slavery? I thought that wasn't what it was really about, etc? And: do you really think that institution would've survived long after a Confederate victory?


HB3, There would have been no Civil War were it not for the issue of Slavery. You know that. It is relevant in that it was supported by the separatist regime at the time. Since it is always wrong, it doesn't matter how long slavery would have survived and it can only be speculated how that "peculiar institution" would have evolved, if at all.

My philosophy in regard to the issue of secession has been discussed at length in this forum. It has not changed nor will it.
Last edited by racehorse on 06-11-2009 09:30 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Image

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 06-11-2009 07:31 PM

I guess. Wasn't slavery pretty much done by that point anyway?

I'm pretty much on your side. But again, don't you think the North came down pretty hard on the South afterwards? Was all that really necessary?

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-11-2009 07:43 PM

HB3 wrote: I guess. Wasn't slavery pretty much done by that point anyway?

I'm pretty much on your side. But again, don't you think the North came down pretty hard on the South afterwards? Was all that really necessary?


Maybe Slavery would have died quickly, HB3.

That has certainly be argued by separatist sympathizers. Still, Slavery may have survived for a considerable period of time if for no other reason than a deeply ingrained cultural belief defying logic and common sense among it's proponents that it was somehow natural, just, and right.

I agree the period of Reconstruction was extremely hard on the states which had wrongly supported secession and rebellion. This was in direct contradiction to President Abraham Lincoln's expressly stated desire to show compassion to the vanquished states. Had President Lincoln survived, a much less harsh and more generous and enlightened approach to reunification of our country would have been pursued. The nation's wounds would have healed much more swiftly and the realization that we are all one people, Americans, would have taken hold among our population far more quickly than it did. Sadly, due to great tragedy, a far different course was followed.
Last edited by racehorse on 06-11-2009 09:23 PM, edited 1 time in total.
racehorse
Image

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 06-11-2009 10:16 PM

A noble answer ;)

I appreciate you so patiently answering all my dumb questions, too.

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-11-2009 10:38 PM

HB3 wrote:

I appreciate you so patiently answering all my dumb questions, too.


Your questions are never dumb, HB3. ;) :)
racehorse
Image

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 06-11-2009 11:47 PM

racehorse wrote: HB3, I recognize the Nazis were far worse than the Confederates. That does not change my opinion of the Confederate regime as treasonous to the rightful government of the United States and that it held a reprehensible philosophy denying liberty and basic human rights to all people.
Ahhhhhhhhhh Race :)

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 06-12-2009 12:14 PM

Linnea - thank you. Yes I remember the chart quite well. :)

--
My views could be related to growing up in a community where family values were very strong. People looked out for others, no one ever had to ask for help when it was needed - help was there.

There are far too many families scattered across the nation. They took jobs and transfers that are now gone. What can they do but turn to others in their family and do their best to survive.

I am concerned about what is happening in this nation right now. All this gov't stepping into private business, all the new taxes being proposed to pay for all the spending. I have grandchildren who are for the most part still quite young. What kind of future will they have? It is a concern that one cannot dismiss .. no matter which political party they associate with partially or completely.

User avatar
USSGoblin
Pirate
Posts: 466
Joined: 07-15-2003 05:28 PM
Contact:

Post by USSGoblin » 06-13-2009 02:44 AM

HB3 wrote: You mean slavery? I thought that wasn't what it was really about, etc? And: do you really think that institution would've survived long after a Confederate victory? I can't imagine that. I'm obviously a neophyte in my understanding here.

And surely the culture was about more than that? What would Margaret Mitchell say?

Actually, a deal was under way to put in a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery in the south. At that time it was about Cotton. But once the shooting started at the fort, then that was it. The Confederates then lost their Cotton costumers all around the world, none wanted to support slavery in context of a war, so refused to buy cotton from the south. Either way, slavery was a crime, and it is still going on today. It was America's darkest hour. The GOP decided to end it. But, it was very close to becoming Constitutionally legal. If it had been, I wonder if America could have ever rose to super power status, or would America have always been viewed as a criminal nation to civil rights. It was very close, Lincoln did things to win the war, that if were done today, would it have been supported. It today, we were at war over slavery, would any of you supported suspending parts of the Constitution to win. FDR did it in WWII. Would you sacrifice rights of some, to support the war effort, if we faced slavery now, and not in the 1800s..
Last edited by USSGoblin on 06-13-2009 02:50 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Raymond, Cancer Survivor
Founder of The Kids Cancer Tree
and The USS GOBLIN. :)

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 06-13-2009 03:15 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... ted_States

Snip:

Slavery In The United States

Civil War and Emancipation

1860 presidential election

The divisions became fully exposed with the 1860 presidential election. The electorate split four ways. The Southern Democrats endorsed slavery, while the Republicans denounced it. The Northern Democrats said democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally. The Constitutional Union Party said the survival of the Union was at stake and everything else should be compromised.

Lincoln, the Republican, won with a plurality of popular votes and a majority of electoral votes. Lincoln, however, did not appear on the ballots of ten southern states: thus his election necessarily split the nation along sectional lines. Many slave owners in the South feared that the real intent of the Republicans was the abolition of slavery in states where it already existed, and that the sudden emancipation of four million slaves would be problematic for the slave owners and for the economy that drew its greatest profits from the labor of people who were not paid.

They also argued that banning slavery in new states would upset what they saw as a delicate balance of free states and slave states. They feared that ending this balance could lead to the domination of the industrial North with its preference for high tariffs on imported goods. The combination of these factors led the South to secede from the Union, and thus began the American Civil War. Northern leaders had viewed the slavery interests as a threat politically, and with secession, they viewed the prospect of a new southern nation, the Confederate States of America, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as politically and militarily unacceptable.

Civil War

The consequent American Civil War, beginning in 1861, led to the end of chattel slavery in America. Not long after the war broke out, through a legal maneuver credited to Union General Benjamin F. Butler, a lawyer by profession, slaves who came into Union "possession" were considered "contraband of war". General Butler ruled that they were not subject to return to Confederate owners as they had been before the war. Soon word spread, and many slaves sought refuge in Union territory, desiring to be declared "contraband." Many of the "contrabands" joined the Union Army as workers or troops, forming entire regiments of the U.S. Colored Troops. Others went to refugee camps such as the Grand Contraband Camp near Fort Monroe or fled to northern cities. General Butler's interpretation was reinforced when Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861, which declared that any property used by the Confederate military, including slaves, could be confiscated by Union forces.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was a powerful move that promised freedom for slaves in the Confederacy as soon as the Union armies reached them, and authorized the enlistment of African Americans in the Union Army. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the Union-allied slave-holding states that bordered the Confederacy. Since the Confederate States did not recognize the authority of President Lincoln, and the proclamation did not apply in the border states, at first the proclamation freed only slaves who had escaped behind Union lines. Still, the proclamation made the abolition of slavery an official war goal that was implemented as the Union took territory from the Confederacy. According to the Census of 1860, this policy would free nearly four million slaves, or over 12% of the total population of the United States.

The Arizona Organic Act abolished slavery on February 24, 1863 in the newly formed Arizona Territory. Tennessee and all of the border states (except Kentucky) abolished slavery by early 1865. Thousands of slaves were freed by the operation of the Emancipation Proclamation as Union armies marched across the South. Emancipation as a reality came to the remaining southern slaves after the surrender of all Confederate troops in spring 1865.

At the beginning of the war, some Union commanders thought they were supposed to return escaped slaves to their masters. By 1862, when it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "…cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or of the Union."[69] The same Congressman—and his fellow Radical Republicans—put pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the slaves, whereas moderate Republicans came to accept gradual, compensated emancipation and colonization.[70] Copperheads, the border states and War Democrats opposed emancipation, although the border states and War Democrats eventually accepted it as part of total war needed to save the Union.

In 1861, Lincoln expressed the fear that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states. He believed that "to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game."[71] At first, Lincoln reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and Generals John C. Fremont (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) in order to keep the loyalty of the border states and the War Democrats.

Lincoln mentioned his Emancipation Proclamation to members of his cabinet on July 21, 1862. Secretary of State William H. Seward told Lincoln to wait for a victory before issuing the proclamation, as to do otherwise would seem like "our last shriek on the retreat".[72] In September 1862 the Battle of Antietam provided this opportunity, and the subsequent War Governors' Conference added support for the proclamation.[73] Lincoln had already published a letter[74] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[75] Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and said that a final proclamation would be issued if his gradual plan based on compensated emancipation and voluntary colonization was rejected. Only the District of Columbia accepted Lincoln's gradual plan, and Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. In his letter to Hodges, Lincoln explained his belief that "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong … And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling ... I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."[76]

Since the Emancipation Proclamation was based on the President's war powers, it only included territory held by Confederates at the time. However, the Proclamation became a symbol of the Union's growing commitment to add emancipation to the Union's definition of liberty.[77] Lincoln also played a leading role in getting Congress to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment,[78] which made emancipation universal and permanent.

Enslaved African Americans did not wait for Lincoln's action before escaping and seeking freedom behind Union lines. From early years of the war, hundreds of thousands of African Americans escaped to Union lines, especially in Union-controlled areas like Norfolk and the Hampton Roads region in 1862 Virginia, Tennessee from 1862 on, the line of Sherman's march, etc. So many African Americans fled to Union lines that commanders created camps and schools for them, where both adults and children learned to read and write. The American Missionary Association entered the war effort by sending teachers south to such contraband camps, for instance, establishing schools in Norfolk and on nearby plantations. In addition, nearly 200,000 African-American men served with distinction as soldiers and sailors with Union troops. Most of those were escaped slaves.

Confederates enslaved captured black Union soldiers, and black soldiers especially were shot when trying to surrender at the Fort Pillow Massacre.[79] This led to a breakdown of the prisoner exchange program, and the growth of prison camps such as Andersonville prison in Georgia, where almost 13,000 Union prisoners of war died of disease and starvation.[80]

In spite of the South's shortage of manpower, until 1865, most Southern leaders opposed arming slaves as soldiers. However,a few Confederates discussed arming slaves since the early stages of the war, and some free blacks had even offered to fight for the South. In 1862 Georgian Congressman Warren Akin supported the enrolling of slaves with the promise of emancipation, as did the Alabama legislature. Support for doing so also grew in other Southern states. A few all black Confederate militia units, most notably the 1st Louisiana Native Guard, were formed in Louisiana at the start of the war, but were disbanded in 1862.[81] In early March, 1865, Virginia endorsed a bill to enlist black soldiers, and on March 13 the Confederate Congress did the same.[82]

There still were over 250,000 slaves in Texas. Word did not reach Texas about the collapse of the Confederacy until June 19, 1865. African Americans and others celebrate that day as Juneteenth, the day of freedom, in Texas, Oklahoma and some other states. It commemorates the date when the news finally reached slaves at Galveston, Texas.

Legally, the last 40,000 or so slaves were freed in Kentucky[83] by the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in December 1865. Slaves still held in New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri and Washington, D.C. also became legally free on this date.

Reconstruction to present

During Reconstruction, it was a serious question whether slavery had been permanently abolished or whether some form of semi-slavery would appear after the Union armies left. A large civil rights movement arose to bring full civil rights and equality under the law to all Americans.

Sharecropping

An 1867 federal law prohibited a descendant form of slavery known as sharecropping or debt bondage, which still existed in the New Mexico Territory as a legacy of Spanish imperial rule. Between 1903 and 1944, the Supreme Court ruled on several cases involving debt bondage of black Americans, declaring these arrangements unconstitutional. In actual practice, however, sharecropping arrangements often resulted in peonage for both black and white farmers in the South.
racehorse
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2004-2009”