2 Minutes - 150 years ago in rural PA

[BuffaloBill]

 

In the States Rights era of American history, the seceeding of South Carolina rendered those forts the soveriegn property of South Carolina. The soldiers holding the fort were given the option over a lenghty period of time to peaceably surrender the fort, and remove themselves back to the still soveriegn American lands. Instead Lincoln ordered that they "hold the fort until fired upon", an act that would logically be required by a State who had just asserted it's own soveriegnty, after which Lincoln declared war on South Carolina. This single action of Lincoln's forced the hands of all other Southern states which had been against secession until this time, being unwilling, given their own right to declare soveriengty, to go to war against another state for simply acting on this right.

 

 

While slave territory was increasing, technological advances and the costs of slave farming relative to the cheap labor resulting from immigrant influxes were rapidly making it economically unadvantageous to utilize slave labor; and thus the actual use of slaves was decreasing, as it did naturally everywhere else in the world.

 

 

The Clay Plan was the Whig Plan, which destroyed the party. It also had the undesirable side-effect (intended effect) of bankrupting every state government who readilly participated in it. It was only the private ventures of the time who wound up with any degree of success. It was the ultimate venture into Mercantile economic policy.

 

So, in more modern terms should the practice of human trafficking and what amounts to slavery be ignored? The idea that slavery has gone away is shallow and short sighted at best.

[Keukasmallies]

Perhaps he is though as such now, but back then, he was and IS the most divisive president in US history. States actually seceeded from the Union over his election...

 

So Abe ain't so different from Barack....?

[Koko78]

So Abe ain't so different from Barack....?

 

Lincoln actually had a set of balls. Obama has to consult with France to borrow theirs.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

So, in more modern terms should the practice of human trafficking and what amounts to slavery be ignored? The idea that slavery has gone away is shallow and short sighted at best.

I don't disagree. There will always be markets for slaves. Some are even US sanctioned in our own territories.

 

I'm not sure of the purpose of your introductory question, however.

[BuffaloBill]

 

I don't disagree. There will always be markets for slaves. Some are even US sanctioned in our own territories.

 

I'm not sure of the purpose of your introductory question, however.

 

There was no question. I simply posted the commonly understood verbiage of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. While you may disagree it was a powerful piece of writing in American history.

[boyst]

There was no question. I simply posted the commonly understood verbiage of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. While you may disagree it was a powerful piece of writing in American history.

I am not going to take away from Lincoln's presidency. I will always respect the position, even if not the politician. However, a lot of revisionist history has been written about the guy. It's happened to a lot of presidents - Nixon, Reagan, JFK, LBJ, Wilson, and John Adams.

 

Um... no he didn't. He started a war that saw the greatest amount of American deaths ever realized in combat; and put in place decades of resentments that have led directly to most of the problems we see in government today. The Civil War was as an elective war fought for the purpose of Henry Clay's economic visions. Slavery was phasing itself out; and the issue would have been settled peacefully as it was in every other country in the modern world.

I do not know as much as I would like to about the civil war, but I recently saw a few pieces of literature about my community in the Civil War. This area was a heavily Union sympathesizing area. There was a Confederate hospital nearby in a barn that still stands, and save for just a few battles this area saw no action. Mostly because the option of slavery in this area was not very practical due to environmental factors. The paper I read focused on Ag in those days. The soil in this area of the Northern Piedmont was considered poor and too hard to successfully cultivate. It was not practical to have expansive farms and the need for slavery to farm those lands was therefore reduced. In fact, according to what I read, many of the laborers of that time were poor white folks who would farm for hours to go back to their tenant houses and shanties. Evidently the support of the Union was the hope for better wages for these workers and getting out from the poverty - they were indifferent toward the slavery but favored federal control. (It was a bit above my level, to be honest, so maybe I missed the finer points. I wish I knew where I read it).

 

In the States Rights era of American history, the seceeding of South Carolina rendered those forts the soveriegn property of South Carolina. The soldiers holding the fort were given the option over a lenghty period of time to peaceably surrender the fort, and remove themselves back to the still soveriegn American lands. Instead Lincoln ordered that they "hold the fort until fired upon", an act that would logically be required by a State who had just asserted it's own soveriegnty, after which Lincoln declared war on South Carolina. This single action of Lincoln's forced the hands of all other Southern states which had been against secession until this time, being unwilling, given their own right to declare soveriengty, to go to war against another state for simply acting on this right.

 

 

While slave territory was increasing, technological advances and the costs of slave farming relative to the cheap labor resulting from immigrant influxes were rapidly making it economically unadvantageous to utilize slave labor; and thus the actual use of slaves was decreasing, as it did naturally everywhere else in the world.

 

 

The Clay Plan was the Whig Plan, which destroyed the party. It also had the undesirable side-effect (intended effect) of bankrupting every state government who readilly participated in it. It was only the private ventures of the time who wound up with any degree of success. It was the ultimate venture into Mercantile economic policy.

What Bill mentions about slavery still existing is in a much different form. Maybe I will be stricken down and may be ripped apart for it, but the idea that slavery was 100% ruthless, barbaric and cruel, while being all of that, is over played in much of how it is portrayed today. Times were hard for hundreds of thousands of Southern people. By no means am I saying is it acceptable to have slavery and I am not in any way apologizing for it but there are hundreds of thousands that were struggling before the war and they struggled more afterwards. After the Union troops went from town to town basically dismantling entire communities and the infastructure which it supported. It was many decades later that the South finally began to turn itself around and it was still punished for many decades later still in political payback. Even today there are stereotypes that date back to the Civil War and what was generated by ignorant Yankees. This war was horrible for everyone in the country, both slaves, Yankees and Confederates. No one was left out.

 

There was no question. I simply posted the commonly understood verbiage of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. While you may disagree it was a powerful piece of writing in American history.

The only part that bugs me about his famous speech was the timing. It was a gloating of sorts. After taking much longer then expected to win a war against what was thought to be a much weaker counterpart he stands up and gives this speech that rubs salt in the wound of the entire issue.

[3rdnlng]

I am not going to take away from Lincoln's presidency. I will always respect the position, even if not the politician. However, a lot of revisionist history has been written about the guy. It's happened to a lot of presidents - Nixon, Reagan, JFK, LBJ, Wilson, and John Adams.

 

 

I do not know as much as I would like to about the civil war, but I recently saw a few pieces of literature about my community in the Civil War. This area was a heavily Union sympathesizing area. There was a Confederate hospital nearby in a barn that still stands, and save for just a few battles this area saw no action. Mostly because the option of slavery in this area was not very practical due to environmental factors. The paper I read focused on Ag in those days. The soil in this area of the Northern Piedmont was considered poor and too hard to successfully cultivate. It was not practical to have expansive farms and the need for slavery to farm those lands was therefore reduced. In fact, according to what I read, many of the laborers of that time were poor white folks who would farm for hours to go back to their tenant houses and shanties. Evidently the support of the Union was the hope for better wages for these workers and getting out from the poverty - they were indifferent toward the slavery but favored federal control. (It was a bit above my level, to be honest, so maybe I missed the finer points. I wish I knew where I read it).

 

 

What Bill mentions about slavery still existing is in a much different form. Maybe I will be stricken down and may be ripped apart for it, but the idea that slavery was 100% ruthless, barbaric and cruel, while being all of that, is over played in much of how it is portrayed today. Times were hard for hundreds of thousands of Southern people. By no means am I saying is it acceptable to have slavery and I am not in any way apologizing for it but there are hundreds of thousands that were struggling before the war and they struggled more afterwards. After the Union troops went from town to town basically dismantling entire communities and the infastructure which it supported. It was many decades later that the South finally began to turn itself around and it was still punished for many decades later still in political payback. Even today there are stereotypes that date back to the Civil War and what was generated by ignorant Yankees. This war was horrible for everyone in the country, both slaves, Yankees and Confederates. No one was left out.

 

The only part that bugs me about his famous speech was the timing. It was a gloating of sorts. After taking much longer then expected to win a war against what was thought to be a much weaker counterpart he stands up and gives this speech that rubs salt in the wound of the entire issue.

 

When he made this speech the war was certainly still in question.

[DC Tom]

You are so wrong on so many levels its no where even near funny. First off Lincoln didn't start any war, at worst he should have backed down to South so they didn't attack an American Fort. Slavery was not being phased out, the South was expanding it, and wanted Cuba as another slave state and Henry Clay's plan was nothing but Hamilton's same plan and later the Republican plan that turned us into the economic super power we became.

 

You are a serious !@#$ing moron.

[Tiberius]

 

In the States Rights era of American history, the seceeding of South Carolina rendered those forts the soveriegn property of South Carolina. The soldiers holding the fort were given the option over a lenghty period of time to peaceably surrender the

While slave territory was increasing, technological advances and the costs of slave farming relative to the cheap labor resulting from immigrant influxes were rapidly making it economically unadvantageous to utilize slave labor; and thus the actual use of slaves was decreasing, as it did naturally everywhere else in the world.

The Clay Plan was the Whig Plan, which destroyed the party. It also had the undesirable side-effect (intended effect) of bankrupting every state government who readilly participated in it. It was only the private ventures of the time who wound up with any degree of success. It was the ultimate venture into Mercantile economic policy.

 

The federal government built the forts and sure, SC may have had a right there, but they still started the war. To say the nation would simply divide itself up with no problems anywhere along the thousands of miles of contested borders is stupid, and blasting away at a fort wass't making it easier at all. The south needed the war to hold the secession passion in place because tempers were cooling as the world didn't end with Lincoln winning. Virginia had not even left the Union yet and was probably going to stay had not SC began a war.

 

Your point about slavery being obsolete is great. I totally agree, but history isn't about what was transpiring exactly, but what people were thinking at the time. John Browns raid had totally freaked out the South and now here was Lincoln who basically started every sentence saying he would not harm slavery and finished every sentence saying he thought it was evil. What the fall in agricultural prices and technological advances really point to is the fact that the south was probably lucky to lose the war. Imagine if they won and were a cotton based economy in the 1870 s when agricultural prices fell through the floor. What then?

 

 

 

In the States Rights era of American history, the seceeding of South Carolina rendered those forts the soveriegn property of South Carolina. The soldiers holding the fort were given the option over a lenghty period of time to peaceably surrender the fort, and remove themselves back to the still soveriegn American lands. Instead Lincoln ordered that they "hold the fort until fired upon", an act that would logically be required by a State who had just asserted it's own soveriegnty, after which Lincoln declared war on South Carolina. This single action of Lincoln's forced the hands of all other Southern states which had been against secession until this time, being unwilling, given their own right to declare soveriengty, to go to war against another state for simply acting on this right.

 

 

While slave territory was increasing, technological advances and the costs of slave farming relative to the cheap labor resulting from immigrant influxes were rapidly making it economically unadvantageous to utilize slave labor; and thus the actual use of slaves was decreasing, as it did naturally everywhere else in the world.

 

 

The Clay Plan was the Whig Plan, which destroyed the party. It also had the undesirable side-effect (intended effect) of bankrupting every state government who readilly participated in it. It was only the private ventures of the time who wound up with any degree of success. It was the ultimate venture into Mercantile economic policy.

 

 

 

You are a serious !@#$ing moron.

 

Great argument Tom!

 

So you agree with Tasker I take it? Lol

 

You really come across as a simpleton sometimes

 

 

 

When he made this speech the war was certainly still in question.

 

Yes and no, remember that the South had lost at Gettysburg and Vicksburg so the North was pretty confident. Grant was taking over in the East and Sherman was about to plunge into Georgia. The worst part of the war still lay ahead but the North did not know that. When GRant had stated in May of 1864 that, "I intended to fight it out along this front if it takes all summer," the north cheered and Lincoln repeated that remark to an audience that appauleded it. By July, after Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor and Sherman seemed bogged down in Georgia that remark was used by the anti-Democrats to labor Lincoln and the war a failure

 

 

 

 

The Clay Plan was the Whig Plan, which destroyed the party. It also had the undesirable side-effect (intended effect) of bankrupting every state government who readilly participated in it. It was only the private ventures of the time who wound up with any degree of success. It was the ultimate venture into Mercantile economic policy.

 

On this part you are way off in right field land. Totally incorrect, except by accident where you correctly labor it mercantile policy. The Whigs died over slavery, the Southern Whigs could not support any anti slavery measures like the Wilmot Proviso or the policy in Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska killed the Whig party, anyone that knows anything about American History knows that. Where you get the idea that Clays plan bankrupted any states is beyond me. Can you link to something that states that? I'd love to trash that site

[Alaska Darin]

So, in more modern terms should the practice of human trafficking and what amounts to slavery be ignored?

All of which is currently illegal.

[DC Tom]

Great argument Tom!

 

So you agree with Tasker I take it? Lol

 

You really come across as a simpleton sometimes

 

Since you didn't get it the first time:

 

You aren't worth an argument, BECAUSE you're a serious !@#$ing moron.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Since you didn't get it the first time:

 

You aren't worth an argument, BECAUSE you're a serious !@#$ing moron.

 

Lol, ya, that's it Tom! Ha ha...

[3rdnlng]

 

 

 

 

Great argument Tom!

 

So you agree with Tasker I take it? Lol

 

You really come across as a simpleton sometimes

 

 

 

Yes and no, remember that the South had lost at Gettysburg and Vicksburg so the North was pretty confident. Grant was taking over in the East and Sherman was about to plunge into Georgia. The worst part of the war still lay ahead but the North did not know that. When GRant had stated in May of 1864 that, "I intended to fight it out along this front if it takes all summer," the north cheered and Lincoln repeated that remark to an audience that appauleded it. By July, after Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor and Sherman seemed bogged down in Georgia that remark was used by the anti-Democrats to labor Lincoln and the war a failure

 

 

 

On this part you are way off in right field land. Totally incorrect, except by accident where you correctly labor it mercantile policy. The Whigs died over slavery, the Southern Whigs could not support any anti slavery measures like the Wilmot Proviso or the policy in Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska killed the Whig party, anyone that knows anything about American History knows that. Where you get the idea that Clays plan bankrupted any states is beyond me. Can you link to something that states that? I'd love to trash that site

 

No you fool, at the time of the Gettysburg address the war result was still in doubt with the participants at that time.They didn't have 150 years to reflect on things. Don't argue just to argue.

[Tiberius]

 

 

No you fool, at the time of the Gettysburg address the war result was still in doubt with the participants at that time.They didn't have 150 years to reflect on things. Don't argue just to argue.

 

No, the North was riding high at that point.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

No, the North was riding high at that point.

 

Yes you dolt, the North may have been feeling pretty good about their victories but the outcome of the war was still in question. Again, don't argue just to argue.

[DC Tom]

No, the North was riding high at that point.

 

Uh...no, it wasn't.

[GG]

Yes and no,

 

Which is another way of saying that the outcome was still in doubt. Troll.

[boyst]

I am guessing gator got his education in the last 20 years when they only taught us slavery was the root cause of the civil war, that Lincoln delivered the address just before it was clear the Union would win and that the South was not justified to be independent and sovereign, free of the Union

 

It is so sad what my generation was taught. Its worse to see what they get today.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Which is another way of saying that the outcome was still in doubt. Troll.

That's what he gets for attempting to view history through the revisionist lense of the present.

[Tiberius]

That's what he gets for attempting to view history through the revisionist lense of the present.

 

All history is revisionist history. Only ignorant people say "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. And demonstrating by your posts, you fit the bill.

 

I am guessing gator got his education in the last 20 years when they only taught us slavery was the root cause of the civil war, that Lincoln delivered the address just before it was clear the Union would win and that the South was not justified to be independent and sovereign, free of the Union

 

It is so sad what my generation was taught. Its worse to see what they get today.

 

No, I've been studying history for longer than that. Slavery was the root cause only willfully ignorant people think otherwise. I think the South had every right to bid for independence, but I also think the North had every right to stop them.