How do you separate the two? If you don’t think cheeseburgers and NASCAR is part of the U.S. culture take another look. It may not be “refined” culture as you would see it, but it is still a part of our culture no matter how much you dislike it.Sorry but cheezburgers n’ nascar ain’t no culture.
But wees talkin about the morality of slave rebelions and not slavery. The latter is said and done for.
That’s not true. The reason paternalistic forms of evangelical Christianity were so popular in the south (Methodism and Baptism in their forms in the late 1700s and early 1800s) is because they justified slavery and preachers made anxious slaveholders feel they had justification in this brutal system. I suggest starting your reading with Sylvia Frey’s “Water from the Rock.”The thing is that we have to look at history in the eyes of the people who lived it as well. We all know perfectly that slavery is wrong today. But back then it was not a problem of conscience yet. .
So you think all the politicians, Lincoln included, knew the outcome of the Civil War before and during it? So you think Lincoln got together with all his cronies and said, “I don’t like the South. Let’s crush her so we can make more money?” There were two cultures in the U.S. at that time. The Southern culture of depending upon the use of other humans to support their way of life and the Northern culture of industrialization. They were two cultures that could never mesh.One thing is to escape.
Another to make a huge overthrow.
Another is to start a revolution to invert all principles.
Plus, the main thing I am trying to make a point is that all these wars and rebelions were not always the most pure intentioned events and that morally unjust order is better than chaotic “justice”.
The Civil War is one of the biggest examples this.
It was a war to crush a traditional way of life to give rise to the industrialist and eventually hollywoodian monster, that is now drinking its own venom.
The same with the French Revolution and the World Wars.
Just far worst.
So you think all the politicians, Lincoln included, knew the outcome of the Civil War before and during it? So you think Lincoln got together with all his cronies and said, “I don’t like the South. Let’s crush her so we can make more money?” There were two cultures in the U.S. at that time. The Southern culture of depending upon the use of other humans to support their way of life and the Northern culture of industrialization. They were two cultures that could never mesh.One thing is to escape.
Another to make a huge overthrow.
Another is to start a revolution to invert all principles.
Plus, the main thing I am trying to make a point is that all these wars and rebelions were not always the most pure intentioned events and that morally unjust order is better than chaotic “justice”.
The Civil War is one of the biggest examples this.
It was a war to crush a traditional way of life to give rise to the industrialist and eventually hollywoodian monster, that is now drinking its own venom.
The same with the French Revolution and the World Wars.
Just far worst.
Tthe antebellum south would have forced the union into a division, and her much loved slavery and slave culture would have continued for another 50 years until advances in agricultural industry have made it economically unfeasible. after the end of slavery would come the worst kind of jim crow-type laws. blacks would have remained second class citizens. * Birth of a nation *would not be reviled, Gone with the wind never written. a very pathetic world, even for a fantasy.So you think all the politicians, Lincoln included, knew the outcome of the Civil War before and during it? So you think Lincoln got together with all his cronies and said, “I don’t like the South. Let’s crush her so we can make more money?” There were two cultures in the U.S. at that time. The Southern culture of depending upon the use of other humans to support their way of life and the Northern culture of industrialization. They were two cultures that could never mesh.
The result WAS a grounding down of the Southern way of life by sometimes very cruel means. Humans many times lower themselves to inhuman levels. That was not justifiable. But, Lincoln wanted to save the Union of ALL the States, not just the North. What would the U.S. be like if he had not stood his ground for this?
Just what did you expect slaves to do? Write a letter to their masters? Generations of families in chains and you think violent escape is not justified?I am not for slavery but against the form of getting rid of it.
Um, what? Explain.There are only two ways slavery is legit.
The first is voluntary.
Under what circumstances would it be wrong?We are talking about slave rebellions, which under *certain *circumstances would be wrong.
please. no condescending remarks about american culture. short track racing is extremely popular throughout the united states and NASCAR is the second most popular sport here.Sorry but cheezburgers n’ nascar ain’t no culture…
If you had been President at that time, what would you have done? Lincoln offered to pay the slave owners approx. $400.00 a piece for their slaves. The owners said no. Most Southerners did not own slaves and were fighting for States Rights, the right to govern their own State and it’s laws. Lincoln could not unconditionally accept that, but saw the greater need as a Centralized Government.I am not for slavery but against the form of getting rid of it.
or, in the words of Abe himself (second inaugrual address), speaking of the Civil War …If you had been President at that time, what would you have done? Lincoln offered to pay the slave owners approx. $400.00 a piece for their slaves. The owners said no. Most Southerners did not own slaves and were fighting for States Rights, the right to govern their own State and it’s laws. Lincoln could not unconditionally accept that, but saw the greater need as a Centralized Government.
note the date, 1862. preservation of slavery was still an option. by 1865, the war was a much different beast, the rubicon of slavery had been crossed, and there was no going back."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. "
–Abraham Lincoln, 1862
She is correct. In the beginning of the War Lincoln’s main objective was to keep the Union together. That was the basis of his philosophy. At that time, he had not defined the humaness of slaves for himself. As the wore tore on, his thinking became more clear, BUT the Emancipation Proclamantion was a POLITICAL attempt to keep England on the side of the U.S. and keep them from siding with the South whose cotton they needed for their industries in Britain.note the date, 1862. preservation of slavery was still an option. by 1865, the war was a much different beast, the rubicon of slavery had been crossed, and there was no going back.
meaning, the 13th amendment had been passed, the emancipation proclamation, and a dozen other statutes that ended slavery forever in the south.
so you’re wrong.
by the time of the second inaugrual address, the issue of whether the war would or would not end slavery was decided and slavery was legally ended everywhere in the US. the EP was only one of a dozen ways the federal government ended slavery, culminating in the 13th amendment.She is correct. In the beginning of the War Lincoln’s main objective was to keep the Union together. That was the basis of his philosophy. At that time, he had not defined the humaness of slaves for himself. As the wore tore on, his thinking became more clear, BUT the Emancipation Proclamantion was a POLITICAL attempt to keep England on the side of the U.S. and keep them from siding with the South whose cotton they needed for their industries in Britain.
As I said in a previous post, most Southerners DID NOT own slaves. If one were to ask the majority of Southern folk why they were fighting the War, they would have said State’s Rights. These folks owned no slaves, had no idea of what plantation life was about, but the North did incur their wrath when they saw the North as incroaching on their property, which they were.
Are you sure about this? I must have skipped those laws. Where do I find the laws, or statements, not to prove you wrong, but for clarification on my part.by the time of the second inaugrual address, the issue of whether the war would or would not end slavery was decided and slavery was legally ended everywhere in the US. the EP was only one of a dozen ways the federal government ended slavery, culminating in the 13th amendment.
the average southerner had no idea what plantation life was like? you really believe that slavery was something that wasn’t completely woven into the fabric of antebellum lifestyle?
encroaching on their property? slaves were considered property by southern states, but is that what you mean???
I’ll look up the “transitional” laws but offhand, there were laws that manumitted black soldiers, then black soldier’s families, they were all small steps and I may be confusing reforms with manumission but I believe there were a few others. the EP, as you know, applied to slaves in areas still under confederate control. the EP was partly a political stroke, but it had a practical effect in the field, where blacks living in areas under federal occupation were no longer slaves.Are you sure about this? I must have skipped those laws. Where do I find the laws, or statements, not to prove you wrong, but for clarification on my part.
Living on a plantation in the deep South and living on a scrub farm in Arkansas were two different things. Many average Southerners were fighting only for those farms, not slaves, In fact I would say the majority of the Southern population was doing so.
Have you read Killer Angels by Shaara? Not that I take historical fiction as true and only fact, but he is factual in his writing as is his son. Team of Rivals is also a good book. Would like to know your list.
NO, of course I wasn’t talking about their human chattel. I should have said land, or area, or something a bit more difinitive.