Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Revisionist History
Options
Comments
-
The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)
No it wasn’t. And there was only the one camp. Most internees were only there for a couple of months - everyone remaining was released before Christmas 1916.
https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/frongoch-a-day-in-the-life0 -
careless sherpa wrote: »Whatever about the conditions in the camp, the idea of throwing everyone in together so there could be political education, organisation and consolidation seems absolutely crazy. I wonder did they not see a flaw in the practice
Lloyd George certainly did - which is why he closed the place as soon as he was made Prime Minister.0 -
-
On a slight tangent: Were those Confederate statues not put up as late as the 1960s? Any statue going up during the Civil Rights movement is fairly suspect. If they were put up a century earlier I say let them stay.0
-
On a slight tangent: Were those Confederate statues not put up as late as the 1960s? Any statue going up during the Civil Rights movement is fairly suspect. If they were put up a century earlier I say let them stay.
Most of them were put up 1900s-1920s, when a lot of the veterans were dying off, to cement the "lost cause" narrative of the South, that it was a just war in the face of Northern aggression.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not forgetting, its putting things in their place and context. The confederates lost the war, and it was a war in which race was a prominent concern.
Pretty good example revisionist history right there and ignoring the propaganda of the victors. It was a war in which economics was the prominent concern. Withdrawing from the Union being the second reason, and race coming far behind... and only when the Union chose to promote it. You really should consider how the Union treated former slaves both while in the military and after the war had ended. Union officers were notoriously racist towards those blacks who joined the union forces.
Lincoln freed the slaves in confederate states not under union control, not within the union itself. He encouraged them to join the union military where they were used as cannon fodder... promises were made that were never kept. Congress later expanded the freedom of the slaves, but even then, there were plenty of examples of loop holes which allowed the continuance of slavery under other names especially relating to children born to slaves and becoming slaves due to their parents status. It was just the buying of new slaves that was particularly blocked.
I could go on, and on, but there's little point. Some people just want to deny what history really represents, and promote a particular set of perceptions.Having them honoured by statues is a ridiculous slap in the face for the afro-american population of those areas - essentially "lie down croppy, lie down".
Having them honored is an indication that they represented a time and people very different to the one we live in now... it also reminds people that double standards exist especially about people telling certain "truths".
Many Confederate officers were too poor to have slaves, but all confederates are equally guilty. Collective guilt is remarkably convenient. Then too, collective innocence is also incredibly convenient... and that's why this kind of revisionism is becoming more commonplace. The union is guilt free in spite of being slave owners themselves... Black people don't want to acknowledge that their own racial history contains far more examples of slavery (and for a longer period) than the 'whites' in America.Ifyou want to worry about history being written "by the victors", then you might direct your attention to statues of lloyd george, churchill. cecil rhodes and so on.
History is being rewritten by liberals and minorities. Not so much by the victors anymore.0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »Most of them were put up 1900s-1920s, when a lot of the veterans were dying off, to cement the "lost cause" narrative of the South, that it was a just war in the face of Northern aggression.
Which it was, and Union diaries of officers/politicians of the time, reflect such a stance. There was no way that the Union would allow an economically important region to leave and set themselves up as a direct competitor. Freedom is horribly inconvenient sometimes... especially if they want to leave... You should take a look at what happened during and after the War of 1812.. you'll find plenty of examples of northern aggression.
But then, logic isn't terribly popular these days....0 -
On confederacy denialism:
https://theweek.com/articles/718986/how-america-forgot-true-history-civil-war0 -
On confederacy denialism:
https://theweek.com/articles/718986/how-america-forgot-true-history-civil-war
Exactly my point... It was a Race issue. No other reason is allowed to be considered.
One example (and there are others): The Cotton tax by Northern supporters on Southern products isn't allowed to be a factor. Imagine this. You're growing cotton, and can make decent profits exporting your crops... or you can be forced to sell your crops to northern factories at a lower price to Northern businessmen, who will in turn, manufacture based on your crops, and then export the products for much higher profits.
The North contained the majority of Industry and trade links. The south contained the majority of raw materials needed for those factories, and food production for the country. Manufactured products naturally selling for higher amounts, so the North being significantly richer than the South, but needing the Souths crops for their own production base.
The Union supporters present the Slave question as being the main reason for the war ... but ignores everything that was done to marginalise Southerners leading up to that point. The war was to force the South to remain within the Union, under the severe control of Northerners. Just look at the extent that Southerners were treated after the war. That isn't retribution. That's a desire to dominate, and fear that they would ever rise to resist again.0 -
Confederate statues seek to glorify racists and white supremacists. They have no place in any society that values equality. The US civil war had several strands in its causation but at heart it was about secession and secession was about slavery. Revisionism is the concerted attempts to muddy those waters and that project is the GOP project of gerrymandering, “culture” wars, redefining liberal as a type of insanity while promoting the most extreme liberal economic view, racism, promoting the uber rich over the “middle” class, packing the judiciary and promoting Christian fundamentalism. Trump is the consequence and front man of revisionism: fake news and alternative facts.0
-
Advertisement
-
Confederate statues seek to glorify racists and white supremacists.
Hardly. Name the statues that were torn down which specifically glorify racism and white supremacists? or even support slavery? Have you even looked at the notations of those statues?They have no place in any society that values equality.
Equality would suggest that the interests of those people who value these statues be protected too.
Again, I haven't seen any statues which promoted racism or white supremacy. The statues commemorated the lives of people who fought and died to protect the values of their society. There's an estimation that less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves when the war began. You genuinely think all southerners were pro-slavery and white supremacists? They fought for many other reasons than slavery, and their values should be remembered for the bravery that they engaged in.
For example, Union forces committed war crimes in the South during the war. Should every reference of Union statues be removed because of that? I don't believe so. Our history should be remembered for both the good and the bad. Cherrypicking our history encourages a Black/white perspective... in reality history is dominated by shades of gray, and we should acknowledge that. This manner of simple thinking dumbs down future generations and their appreciation of their past. Without understanding our past to the fullest extent, we cannot become a greater and more just society.The US civil war had several strands in its causation but at heart it was about secession and secession was about slavery.
Secession was about economics and power. Not slavery. There was no chance the North would allow its bread basket to leave...Revisionism is the concerted attempts to muddy those waters and that project is the GOP project of gerrymandering, “culture” wars, redefining liberal as a type of insanity while promoting the most extreme liberal economic view, racism, promoting the uber rich over the “middle” class, packing the judiciary and promoting Christian fundamentalism. Trump is the consequence and front man of revisionism: fake news and alternative facts.
Trump is the reaction to the amount of fake news, liberal revisionism, and racial divisions that Obama along with other presidents encouraged to happen. Obama did more than any other president to encourage divisions within American society.
I don't like Trump... but I'm not going to allow my dislike of him to blind me to the behavior of previous presidents who fractured American society, and elevated corporate America above the voters. Fake news and alternative facts has been happening since Bush Junior. The fact that you place all responsibility on Trump simply shows your inability to be balanced.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Hardly. Name the statues that were torn down which specifically glorify racism and white supremacists? or even support slavery? Have you even looked at the notations of those statues?
Equality would suggest that the interests of those people who value these statues be protected too.
Again, I haven't seen any statues which promoted racism or white supremacy. The statues commemorated the lives of people who fought and died to protect the values of their society. There's an estimation that less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves when the war began. You genuinely think all southerners were pro-slavery and white supremacists? They fought for many other reasons than slavery, and their values should be remembered for the bravery that they engaged in.
For example, Union forces committed war crimes in the South during the war. Should every reference of Union statues be removed because of that? I don't believe so. Our history should be remembered for both the good and the bad. Cherrypicking our history encourages a Black/white perspective... in reality history is dominated by shades of gray, and we should acknowledge that. This manner of simple thinking dumbs down future generations and their appreciation of their past. Without understanding our past to the fullest extent, we cannot become a greater and more just society.
Secession was about economics and power. Not slavery. There was no chance the North would allow its bread basket to leave...
Trump is the reaction to the amount of fake news, liberal revisionism, and racial divisions that Obama along with other presidents encouraged to happen. Obama did more than any other president to encourage divisions within American society.
I don't like Trump... but I'm not going to allow my dislike of him to blind me to the behavior of previous presidents who fractured American society, and elevated corporate America above the voters. Fake news and alternative facts has been happening since Bush Junior. The fact that you place all responsibility on Trump simply shows your inability to be balanced.
You see, dear reader, the strategy. The opening pseudo question to try to claim that there are different grades of confederate statues. Fighting for the confederacy was fighting to secede to preserve slavery. All confederate statues are tainted. All must go.
Next the claim that equality means that if someone has the view that slavery isn't a bad thing and those who fought to maintain it should be honoured then their views have to be taken into account. They don't. Their views are vile. They can express them and then they are ignored because they are vile and the statues are demolished.
The "values" of the south and their "bravery" are irrelevant. You may as well honour the bravery of Nazis.
The assertion in regard to secession is absolutely at odds with reality. Secession was about slavery.
And at last the big Trumpist lie. Accuse the other of what you do yourself. The only way Obama promoted division was by triggering racists and neo confederates with their absurd revisionism and culture war.
/end0 -
-
-
You see, dear reader, the strategy. The opening pseudo question to try to claim that there are different grades of confederate statues. Fighting for the confederacy was fighting to secede to preserve slavery. All confederate statues are tainted. All must go.
Actually no, since if you look at actual history rather than articles posing the authors opinions.... you'll find that the recruiting parties and the marching songs of the confederate forces didn't scream outrage at the Northerners coming to take their slaves away. Since most of them didn't have slaves, and were highly unlikely every to ever be able to afford them.
Instead, if you do some research, you'll find that it's the question of Southern independence in response to the greed of Northerners that's the cause for most common southerners. After all, the taxation policies and other economic changes pushed by the Northern states sought to squeeze all profits out of them and into Northern coffers.
Hence, why the war and secession was an economic movement rather than a defiance of the abolishing of slavery. In fact, if you dig a bit, you'll find that before the North introduced the freeing of slaves, the South also discussed doing the same. Both armies needed more men to fight, and it was the North who made the declaration first. Again, only related to slaves within confederate areas, and not within Union states (many of which did have slaves at that time)
Fact is, slavery only really concerned the rich in the South, and the vast majority of those Southerners involved in the fighting were not rich.Next the claim that equality means that if someone has the view that slavery isn't a bad thing and those who fought to maintain it should be honoured then their views have to be taken into account. They don't. Their views are vile. They can express them and then they are ignored because they are vile and the statues are demolished.
Except, of course, that you have still to prove that either the people who raised those statues or the people the statues represented supported the issue of slavery, or racism...
You and others are simply repeating the same mantra. That everything connected to the South and the "Civil war" (or the war of Northern aggression") was about slavery, racism, and white supremacy. I've pointed out larger issues which haven't been adequately addressed.The "values" of the south and their "bravery" are irrelevant. You may as well honour the bravery of Nazis.
Once more, it's the blanket collective guilt. Not all Wehrmacht troops were Nazi's nor were all Germans Nazi's. If they had been, then, far less innocents would have escaped German held territories both before, and over the course of WW2.
I'd have no issue with Germans honoring the bravery of German soldiers who fought in WW2. Just as I'd have no issue with Britain honoring the bravery of British soldiers. I would have issue with them honoring a proven mass murderer, and placing propaganda on the statue to promote such behavior in the future. It's like honoring Churchill. Do you honor him for his actions during WW2, or condemn him for his hard-line decisions prior to that which caused suffering, and death? Probably you would prefer to remove any reference of him entirely, because such a decision would make you uncomfortable. :rolleyes:The assertion in regard to secession is absolutely at odds with reality. Secession was about slavery.
I've pointed out obvious flaws in claiming that slavery was the only reason for the war, or secession, and you're holding your hands over your ears, shouting " la la la la la".
And that's why you support revisionist policies... because you want to change reality to match your Black/white good/bad limited viewpoint. Rather than deal with the realities of life. History must become a safe space for you to feel comfortable observing.And at last the big Trumpist lie. Accuse the other of what you do yourself. The only way Obama promoted division was by triggering racists and neo confederates with their absurd revisionism and culture war.
/end
Oh lord... You really have bought the radical liberal agenda hook, line, and sinker. You realise that Disney has recently bought Fox News, and that the vast majority of US media is owned by openly liberal or globalist organisations?0 -
The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)
If you mean Frongoch internment camp in Wales? which has a small memorial remembering the Irish republican prisoners the camp is long gone. I have been there.
It's grossly insulting to compare it to the nazi death camps.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Exactly my point... It was a Race issue. No other reason is allowed to be considered.
One example (and there are others): The Cotton tax by Northern supporters on Southern products isn't allowed to be a factor. Imagine this. You're growing cotton, and can make decent profits exporting your crops... or you can be forced to sell your crops to northern factories at a lower price to Northern businessmen, who will in turn, manufacture based on your crops, and then export the products for much higher profits.
The North contained the majority of Industry and trade links. The south contained the majority of raw materials needed for those factories, and food production for the country. Manufactured products naturally selling for higher amounts, so the North being significantly richer than the South, but needing the Souths crops for their own production base.
The Union supporters present the Slave question as being the main reason for the war ... but ignores everything that was done to marginalise Southerners leading up to that point. The war was to force the South to remain within the Union, under the severe control of Northerners. Just look at the extent that Southerners were treated after the war. That isn't retribution. That's a desire to dominate, and fear that they would ever rise to resist again.
Aw bless, all those marginalised plantation owners.
Slavery bad, the South lost. Get over it.0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »Aw bless, all those marginalised plantation owners.
Marginalized crop farmers. The amount of plantations pales in comparison to the amount of farms ran by poor families... but that wouldn't fit the mantra of the South being full of racists and slave owners.Slavery bad, the South lost. Get over it.
Never said that Slavery wasn't bad. I'm objecting to this blatant attempt to redecorate history.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Pretty good example revisionist history right there and ignoring the propaganda of the victors. It was a war in which economics was the prominent concern.
Your posts are to say the least a highly partisan interpretation of history, promoted by many Southern historians up to the 1950s, but since largely discredited (except in Southern White Nationalist circles).
Slavery was the key reason for the civil war. That is not to say that the North went to war to free the slaves. Slavery as an institution was unpopular in the North but the Abolishionist position was a minority movement. Nevertheless anti-slavery sentiment was growing, driven by several factors –the Fugitive Slave Laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850), the Dred Scott decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford), the Kansas Missouri War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas), and the success of the novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
Lincoln’s election manifesto included the key element of limiting the extension of slavery into the new western territories, ie, it would be confined to its original Deep South states. This policy broadly reflected his personal view at the time. Although he came to be an Abolisionist, both as a strategy and out of personal conviction, he was not one in 1860.
The civil war was brewing for a least a decade before it broke out. There was no Southern move to abolish slavery in the 1850s – the economy depended on it. Instead the South were insisting on their right to extend slavery into the new territories in the West. If they established new Slave States they would continue to dominate Congress as they had done since the 1820s. They had used this dominance to control trade policy in a way that favoured the South (trade/economic policy was a long Northern grievance). The North wanted to build up its industries to compete with Britain. This included tariffs on cheap British imports – among them cotton products, the cotton having originated in the South.
The Southern economy was dependent on mass export of basic commodities (esp cotton) produced cheaply on the backs of slave labour. Much of these commodities went to Britain, which was then the world’s dominant industrial producer of cheap consumer goods. Hence, the sympathy of many of the industrialists in Britain (and their friends in Government) to the Southern cause, even though popular sentiment in Britain was strongly anti-slavery. Control of congress by the South would also mean blocking any other restrictions on slavery.
There was at least one other reason the South wanted to extend slavery into the new western territories. Since the closure of the Atlantic slave trade one of their main “commodities” was slaves. The price had risen considerably, and breeding and selling slaves was a valued source of income for the slave owners. (The slave markets were akin to cattle fairs). The more they could extend slavery into the new western territories the more they could extend this valued market. Conversely, confining slavery to the original Southern slave states would limit it. The extravagant houses and lifestyle of many of the slave owning plantation class often concealed heavy indebtedness – they were dependent on their economic model for survival. And many were resentful towards the holders of their debts, such as northern banks.
No, the poor whites did not own slaves and never could – they were too expensive. But they both feared and hated them. And they were largely determined to preserve the “southern way of life” which was dependent on slavery. But, like in all wars, some were simply conscripts who had little ideological commitment (the same could be said for many northern conscripts).
Economics of course was a factor leading to the war – as it is in most wars. But in this case it was the economics of slavery.0 -
Partisan? Not really. I take issue with the idea that the war was primarily about slavery from the virtuous point of view of freeing the slaves. Slavery was definitely a primary issue, but the use of slavery as a reason for the war is far more complicated than other posters would like to explore.
Economics and political power were at the root of the war. A war between rich people with the poor dying for them. The industrialist north versus the agrarian south. Industrial tycoons, versus the Plantation owners.
The South opposed the creation of further states without slavery since they would automatically place greater influence within the grasp of the northern politicians, who promoted greater degrees of economic tariffs against the south. The Northern states were primarily industrialized and demanded that the south supply them with resources to fuel their factories, preventing them from exporting their crops to other countries.
Plantations with slaves were far more successful and profitable than single crop farmers... and if you look at the period after the war, the plantations were seized from the southerners, and filled with freed slaves but paid less than white people would have been. The lot of the slaves didn't improve dramatically after the war considering the amount of promises broken by the Union, and in some cases, slavery continued but under different formats.
I'm not claiming that slavery is acceptable nor am I claiming the south to be innocent in its use of slavery. Various states within the South were diehard slave owners, and considered it an essential part of their culture. At the same time, I refuse to accept this whitewashed history which ignores the use of slavery by northern states, nor that the slavery question was used by both sides to further political agendas relating to influence and economics. Same with the perception that as soon as Lincoln, declared the slaves to be free, that the slaves in northern territories were actually free. Truth is, they were used... and used harshly.
Consider the posts that I responded to. Actually consider the attitude of their posts. It's a black/white good versus evil attitude that fails to consider the complexities of the situation. The south were bad, and the north were good. All southerners were racists and white supremacists... and the northerners were pure crusaders against the issue of slavery.
The behavior of the North prior, during, and after the war doesn't matter, because the South were notorious slave states. That's my issue with all of this. This attitude of accepting propaganda designed to paint one side as bad and the other as wonderful.
I don't particularly like how the South existed prior to the war. Fact is, I don't like what the North was either. Slavery, in many different forms, existed in both areas. The actions of both sides in the war were awful. Were the South right in going to war? Somewhat. The economic considerations were definitely a serious reason for war when diplomacy had failed.
I'm curious... in your opinion... had the South freed its slaves prior to the war, do you think the North would have stopped seeking economic domination over the South?0 -
Advertisement
-
isnt it amazing how the good guys always win?0
-
Deleted User wrote: »..........
I'm not claiming that slavery is acceptable nor am I claiming the south to be innocent in its use of slavery. Various states within the South were diehard slave owners, and considered it an essential part of their culture. At the same time, I refuse to accept this whitewashed history which ignores the use of slavery by northern states, nor that the slavery question was used by both sides to further political agendas relating to influence and economics. Same with the perception that as soon as Lincoln, declared the slaves to be free, that the slaves in northern territories were actually free. Truth is, they were used... and used harshly.
Consider the posts that I responded to. Actually consider the attitude of their posts. It's a black/white good versus evil attitude that fails to consider the complexities of the situation. The south were bad, and the north were good. All southerners were racists and white supremacists... and the northerners were pure crusaders against the issue of slavery.
The behavior of the North prior, during, and after the war doesn't matter, because the South were notorious slave states. That's my issue with all of this. This attitude of accepting propaganda designed to paint one side as bad and the other as wonderful.
I don't particularly like how the South existed prior to the war. Fact is, I don't like what the North was either. Slavery, in many different forms, existed in both areas. The actions of both sides in the war were awful. Were the South right in going to war? Somewhat. The economic considerations were definitely a serious reason for war when diplomacy had failed.
I'm curious... in your opinion... had the South freed its slaves prior to the war, do you think the North would have stopped seeking economic domination over the South?
Just a few points (sorry for ignoring others).
William Faulkner described slavery as "the nation's original sin". I am not sure if he was referring to just the south (where he was a native) or the US as a whole. Either way is apt. It is an issue the founders failed to deal with at its outset and that legacy continues to plague it today. Taking the religious symbolism further, the Civil War can be seen as the punishment for that sin.
Was the north virtuous as regards the black race ? Definitely not. Apart from the radical abolitionists, few anywhere in the country envisioned a nation of black and white citizens living side by side. Even in the early stages of the war, when Lincoln was considering abolition, he was thinking of "solutions" such as establishing an overseas colony somewhere where the freed slaves could go and live. In fairness, he showed an amazing ability to alter his views and his prejudices in response to experience and he radically changed in this regard over the course of the war.
As regards emancipation and it being applied unequally. When this was being considered during the course of 1862 Lincoln's primary motivation was winning the war. This meant winning the war in the field (which was not going well) and winning the war of public opinion. As regards the latter the Republicans performed poorly in many elections that year as they were portrayed by Democrats as "****** worshippers"(sic). So there were limitations to how far he could go while keeping the public on board.
More fundamentally he needed to keep the slave-holding "border states" onside. There was a real danger of one or more of these defecting to the Confederate side which could have been fatal to the war effort. Hence, the offer of gradual emancipation with compensation to "loyal territories" but immediate emancipation of slaves in areas in rebellion. This was a tactical move, not ideological. Everyone knew that slavery could not survive in the border states alone if it was abolished in the South. But he needed to be seen to be treating slave owners who rebelled differently to those who remained loyal. Otherwise, where was the incentive for the latter. Anyway all slaves were freed within a few years.
None of us know what would have happened had Lincoln survived to lead post-war reconstruction. What we do know is that his vice-president and successor, Johnson, was a disaster.
Reconstruction could certainly have been managed much better for the South - both black and white. But at least it gave the southern black population a certain period of respite (1867-77) from the vengeful retribution of the southern whites. This had begun in 1865-66 but was rolled back during the years of radical Federal Reconstruction. But the Jim Crow laws that were rolled out across the south and their implemention during the period 1880 and 1950 were an absolute disgrace. Sin revisited?
Was the treatment of the black population in the north good? Certainly not. Even without formal laws discrimination was rife. But their treatment in the south was in many ways little better than under slavery.0 -
Just a few points (sorry for ignoring others).
.
Great post. Agreed with most of your points.
The thing about Lincoln was that he was a politician. He played the "game"... as did most politicians. It's something that's often forgotten or ignored that American politicians of that era were rather nasty in their duties both to other politicians and those they considered their enemies.
Lincoln repeatedly made speeches describing the Blacks as being lesser than good-standing whites. Political rhetoric, or his genuine feelings? I don't know. His wife being an owner of slaves, must have had some impact on his perceptions, considering the importance of marriage at that time. Most references to his plans regarding the slaves (that I have seen) suggest shipping them back to Africa. Liberia essentially was the dream developed later from his vision. That probably didn't work out the way he envisioned though. Black people enslaving other blacks.
Still, slavery needed to be abolished for the good of the nation. It's just a pity that the perceptions of inferiority/racism continued in both North and South for so long, and still do, to this day.
I suspect Lincoln would have treated the South far less harshly after the war, and would have encouraged a better treatment of the former slaves. It makes sense from a political point of view. Unification of the nation against outsiders, which is something he was very keen on, considering the presence of the Imperial powers just hovering outside his borders.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Lincoln repeatedly made speeches describing the Blacks as being lesser than good-standing whites. Political rhetoric, or his genuine feelings? I don't know. His wife being an owner of slaves, must have had some impact on his perceptions, considering the importance of marriage at that time. Most references to his plans regarding the slaves (that I have seen) suggest shipping them back to Africa. Liberia essentially was the dream developed later from his vision. That probably didn't work out the way he envisioned though. Black people enslaving other blacks.
I think the younger Lincoln shared much of the prejudice of his society against blacks. As you pointed out previously, even in the north as a young man he had many neighbours and acquaintances who kept slaves. He was always personally an opponent of slavery as an institution but it does not, as far as we know, figure as a significant public issue for him in his early career.
He married into a slave holding family, as you point out, so he can't have had too many scruples. I don't think his wife herself owned slaves but her father did. The father-in-law was something that may seem peculiar to us now but was not that unusual then - he owned slaves but favoured the ending of slavery - but gradually. Make me holy but not yet, if you like. Lincoln's wife's uncle was actually a slave trader.
What I think is fascinating about Lincoln was his gradual transformation. First it was his opposition to the expansion of slavery as a national political issue (not a moral one). Even as he moved towards an emancipatory position as President he found it hard to envisage an America of freed slaves as citizens (or even present within the boundaries of the country). Again a common mindset of the time. But he really challenged himself and changed as he came into real engagement with real black people. He transformed in his later years (personally as well as politically).
In this day and age he would never survive -- as a politician anyway. What people said or did or advocated 10 or 20 years ago is seems deemed as an irremovable moral stain.
People can only be judged by the standards of their time. By today's standards he would be regarded as an out an out racist. Yet it was he (as a true believer by then) who managed to get slavery outlawed in the Constitution. As you say, he was well able to play the game as a politician. He had to be.
I think he would have made a better job all around of the post war years than his successors. But, then, winning the peace is often harder still than winning the war. Witness Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc, etc. Some lessons are never learned!0 -
In this day and age he would never survive -- as a politician anyway. What people said or did or advocated 10 or 20 years ago is seems deemed as an irremovable moral stain.
I think this is a real worry in the world today, it is expected by some (an increasing number too) that any public figure not just be now, but always have been the finished article, as if people come from the womb as fully formed intellectuals.
There seems to be no understanding that people change (for better and for worse), sometimes quite dramatically, a societal inability to forgive previous "misdeeds" is eventually going to cost us dearly i think.0 -
If I ruled my land I would send Unionists to Scotland and I would also ban tourism, the English language and sex before marriage, degeneracy and USA ruined the world. I pity the future generations living in this modern clown world, humans are going to die out anyway as only handsome men will breed in 200 years due to the female ego, there aren't enough handsome men in existence. Women think that breeding with a healthy strong man will breed healthy off spring but it seems that illnesses, autism and ugliness manages to seep through anyway. I hope there is an after life so I can watch the clown world with my binoculars with popcorn. Women think they can get rid of failures like me by breeding with successful handsome men but we will always be around lurking in the gene pool. Society has been trying to get rid of us for milleniums yet here we still are, inferior men.0
-
LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »If I ruled my land I would send Unionists to Scotland and I would also ban tourism, the English language and sex before marriage, degeneracy and USA ruined the world. I pity the future generations living in this modern clown world, humans are going to die out anyway as only handsome men will breed in 200 years due to the female ego, there aren't enough handsome men in existence. Women think that breeding with a healthy strong man will breed healthy off spring but it seems that illnesses, autism and ugliness manages to seep through anyway. I hope there is an after life so I can watch the clown world with my binoculars with popcorn. Women think they can get rid of failures like me by breeding with successful handsome men but we will always be around lurking in the gene pool. Society has been trying to get rid of us for milleniums yet here we still are, inferior men.
Blimey.0 -
The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)
Aside from the gasing???!!
How about they were a bit like the Khmer Rouge death camps except nobody died. Or it was like living in North Korea, but you had capitalism and freedom. Or it was like racism, but they were all the same race.
Seriously, "aside from the gasing"??
It would be worrying if you meant that as a serious post.0 -
People can only be judged by the standards of their time. By today's standards he would be regarded as an out an out racist.
People should only be judged by the standards of their time. The reality is far different, as evidenced by some posts on this thread. And he wouldn't be considered a racist because his history would be whitewashed to prevent anyone from thinking such a thing of him.
It's the same with someone like, Robert E Lee, who wasn't a owner of slaves (to my knowledge), and wasn't a supporter of slavery in politics. He returned to fight for his state. The same can be said for many of the generals and other officers who served in the Southern military. However, the South, and all those within are labelled with the blanket accusation of being racists and associated directly with slavery. (hence the attack on statues commemorating their actions)But, then, winning the peace is often harder still than winning the war. Witness Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc, etc. Some lessons are never learned!
The problem with all of those theaters is that, just as with, Vietnam, no exit strategy was ever considered in the planning. The US military and industry is calling the decisions there. The US is highly unlikely to withdraw any time soon, because the contractors and military based production companies are making too much profit, along with expanding their power within the Federal government. Sept 11 started it all, just as Vietnam did way back when. Little concern for having a winning strategy and more focus on simply engaging in war.
McNamara's documentary on his own life, and political career is a very interesting take on the Vietnam conflict. It does make you think about the motives at play.. and parallels can easily be drawn with the conflicts today. Especially when you consider that Kennedy was withdrawing US support from Vietnam before he was shot. Just as the US was decreasing its foreign military commitment in the M.East before Sept 11.
But modern history tends to overlook the subtleties, because authors are encouraged towards a more accepted and approved perspective. Same with the media, since they have far more influence than they did previously for the recording of history and how the public recognises it.
Yup, I'll continue to refer back to the thread topic, because it is a very real aspect of modern society. Have you noticed that people have stopped asking questions about the past, and instead, simply accept what comes from organisation A or organisation B? Independents without the backing of a specialist PHD are insulted and dismissed as flakes. Even history is becoming regulated and controlled.0 -
Advertisement
-
All serious historians agree slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil War. The seceding states said as such at the time.
https://www.historynet.com/which-states-referred-to-slavery-in-their-cause-of-secession.htmAlthough they mentioned other causes and sometimes used veiled references to defense of “life and property,” none of the secessionist was shy about making some reference to slavery as a primary cause for their dissolution of ties with a United States government that had, in their eyes, fallen under the domination of the “Black Republicans,” as a careful look through their respective ordinances will reveal.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
The attitudes of the time can be found in more detail in the rhetoric that accompanied the breaks. At the very onset, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina declared that President-elect Abraham Lincoln’s “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”
On January 7, 1861, the ordinance signed in Montgomery that “it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the Slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States.”
On February 2, 1861, Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”
On March 9, 1861, Arkansas’s George B. Smoote added a resolution: “Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.”
On April 17, 1861 latecomer Virginia, provoked by Lincoln’s raising troops to suppress the already seceded states, declared “Lincoln’s opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” as it cut ties with Washington. Tennessee was the 11th and last, its population divided on secession (eastern Tennesseans generally opposed it), but not on the slave issue.
Such is the underlying motive behind “States’ Rights” and the “heritage” symbolized then as well as now by the Confederate battle flag—and, for that matter, the national “Stars and Bars.”0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHIxxqoKnM4
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5b_-TZwQ0I
Advertisement