|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hmmmm...now I'm more confused than ever.  I always thought an insurrection existed when a bunch of people got guns and started shooting up the neighborhood. Whether the Supreme Court was sitting or on vacation or hiding in the woods was largely irrelevant to the fact of people overthrowing the county sheriff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lincoln might have been holding the country together, but what drove it apart in the first place? From what I read it began when the govt. wouldn't give minor economic concessions to the farmers, so a lot to do with tarrifs. From there, if you end up killing your own countrymen and women and kids, then you are f^%$ed in the head. Lincoln along with other warmongers are/were f^%$ed in the head. All I gotta say about it. And rightly so that he got his just desserts so soon after the bloody nightmare he helped propel. Speaking of which, one is not assasinated for no reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Hmmmm...now I'm more confused than ever. I always thought an insurrection existed when a bunch of people got guns and started shooting up the neighborhood. Whether the Supreme Court was sitting or on vacation or hiding in the woods was largely irrelevant to the fact of people overthrowing the county sheriff. |
But how do you measure the degree of insurrection? SCOTUS thought Habeas Corpus could still be applied if the insurrection did not topple SCOTUS itself.
| Quote: |
| Lincoln might have been holding the country together, but what drove it apart in the first place? From what I read it began when the govt. wouldn't give minor economic concessions to the farmers, so a lot to do with tarrifs. |
Is this satire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
SCOTUS thought Habeas Corpus could still be applied if the insurrection did not topple SCOTUS itself.
|
That's what I would have thought. What I was getting from your post was that unless the SC was prevented from meeting, there could be nothing called an insurrection. It made no sense.
I wish it were, but there has been a revisionist movement going on for some time now to shift attention away from slavery being the root cause of the War. One of the ways is to inflate the squabbles over tariffs, which were serious enough, into something even more important than they were. Tariffs had been behind South Carolina's attempt at nullification in the early '30's based on their claim of States Rights but squelched by Jackson. States Righters at least have the decency not to be proud of defending slavery with their ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lincoln was the best president the US ever had. The far right , the far left, the sicko combination of the two and the extreme libertarians might not like him . but you gotta understand They either love their own race , hate their country and support the enemy , or are just plain in love with themselves.
I'll go Lincoln over those four elements any day.
The US would be better off without the far right , the far left , the combination of the two and the extreme libertarians.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
and the extreme libertarians...are just plain in love with themselves.
|
Not to quibble, but: Lincoln was the 2nd best president the US ever had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US would be better off without the far right , the far left , the combination of the two and the extreme libertarians. |
Well, I've been to some "extreme libertarian" conferences in Alabama where Lincoln is discussed. Their opposition to him is that slavery would have ended anyhow, so why have a war. They really hate war. But I don't know much of anything about American history, so maybe they are wrong. Maybe without the Civil War slavery would still exist today?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They really hate war. |
Or do they just hate losing?
My take on the idea that slavery would have died out naturally: OK, fine. Let 3,000,000 white people swap places with the black slaves and allow their lives to be blighted for however many decades it would take for slavery to disappear.
The first two years of the war were not about freeing the slaves. The war started because Southern states insisted the states, not the nation, are sovereign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that is unfair. Though, again, I don't really know about the topic. Their ire was at the body count.
Maybe some were separatists too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US would be better off without the far right , the far left , the combination of the two and the extreme libertarians. |
Well, I've been to some "extreme libertarian" conferences in Alabama where Lincoln is discussed. Their opposition to him is that slavery would have ended anyhow, so why have a war. They really hate war. But I don't know much of anything about American history, so maybe they are wrong. Maybe without the Civil War slavery would still exist today?? |
I'm going to go a different route than Ya-Ta. Sure there was a dispute about the power of the Federal gov't versus the States. But without a burning issue like slavery, it would have been all academic. And in fact, the South was really on both sides of this issue at different times. It wanted Federal intervention when slaves escaped North, thus the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was passed. It was pleased when the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Dred Scott that blacks could not be citizens of the United States, and thus could not be citizens of states individually. No, the South was fine with the Union with these developments.
But once a Republican was elected President on a platform of ceasing the expansion of slavery (that's right! Republicans just wanted slavery to stay where it was), now all of a sudden the South starts groaning about States Rights and how the Constitution was a willing compact anyway.
It was about money. The slaves were the backbone of production and the economy. I mean, Ya-Ta, you're a serious student of American History. When was the previous time a secessionist movement occurred in the US? It was the Hartford Convention, when New England opposed the anti-trade policies of Jefferson and Madison because it was hurting the source of their money: their shipping business.
The South put their slave economy ahead of the Union. Lincoln sought to pacify the rebellion first simply because if he established control, thereafter he could easily destroy slavery.
We just talk about the war as if it were a jurisdictional, philosophical issue, because, you know, its face-saving for the South. Of course it was about the slaves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It was about money. The slaves were the backbone of production and the economy. |
I would put it a little differently. It was about a whole lifestyle based on slavery, modelled on the English country gentry ideal, reinforced with an antipathy toward industry and cities. 'Gentlemen' didn't engage in business. (Thank you, Thomas Jefferson) The irony of Jefferson's Embargo Act was to stimulate New England industry, exactly what he didn't want to happen.
I wouldn't put much emphasis on the Hartford Convention. It was only a handful of men without much public support. It's remembered because it destroyed the Federalist Party.
There is some truth to the poster mentioning tariffs as a cause. ('a', not 'the') The Republicans wanted high tariffs to protect infant industries and the South hated high tariffs because they produced almost no manufactured products. They bought imported goods. The Republicans also supported internal developments which the South didn't.
After 1820 the South increasingly used States Rights as their defense against the growing population and industrial power of the North. The North saw the Compromise of 1850, the Dred Scott Decision and the Kansas-Nebraska Act as threatening to open all of the North to slavery and the subsequent demotion of the white working class to the status of slaves. In short, the Slavocracy was taking over the whole country (in the perception of many in the North).
Lincoln, as you rightly said, only wanted to restrict slavery to where it already existed. (Cooper Union speech) I take him at his word when he said he wanted to save the Union and if that meant freeing none of the slaves, some of the slaves or all of the slaves, then he'd do it. Lincoln was a nationalist, not an abolitionist.
I've always felt that it's impossible to separate slavery and States Rights. One inflamed the other. But the South never could have seceded without a political philosophy to justify their actions. There could have been an insurrection but not an attempt to set up a separate government based purely on States Rights...which contributed mightily to killing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Their ire was at the body count.
|
Lincoln struggled to justify it to himself and to the country: "Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'." (Second Inaugural)
What those people at that meeting were not taking into account was that every day that slavery continued, more slaves' lives were wasted. How many of us would willingly remain slaves for another generation or two or three while the masters got used to the idea that things had to change? My freedom is more important than the convenience and comfort of other men.
The body count was horrendous. In every generation of slavery from 1619 the body count of the slaves was 100%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But I don't know much of anything about American history, so maybe they are wrong. Maybe without the Civil War slavery would still exist today?? |
I think there was an economist who won the Nobel back in the 90s some time, who had published work showing that slavery was in fact economically viable, and could easily have survived for a long time had the Civil War not happened. Can't remember his name, or any other details of his thesis, just that the perpetually offended sensitivity hucksters misunderstood him as saying that slavery was a good thing, and complained about his getting the Nobel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
