Fraternity Bans the Wearing of Confederate Uniforms

[Martok]

You appear to have a narrow view of history on this point and you seek to attribute one and only one "meaning."

I have a full spectrum focus on history. I find those that wish to down play the importance of slavery are the ones who have a narrow view of history. It reminds me of Dawkins "mother of all burkas" Those that wish to deny slavery as a major issue of the confederacy and the Civil War like to wear their burkas to block that part out and keep their view as narrowly focused as possible.

It is simply not correct that Lincoln was elected, even in the slightest, to eradicate slavery or "right the wrongs" of the past. That is a gross oversimplification, as well as being simply wrong.

I see you're from the neo confederate or Libertarian school of historical revisionism.

On February 27, 1860 Lincoln gave his Cooper Union speech in New York City where he mentions slavery 58 times. That speech has been credited with winning him the republican nomination.

Lincoln was more than willing to leave slavery alone in states that already had it. He opposed its expansion. He knew, and so did the confederates, if the institution of slavery was to survive it had to expand into other states/territories otherwise it would die. Lincoln wanted slavery to die a slow death.

Instead, thanks to Southern aggression, slavery was abolished more quickly than expected when the thirteenth amendment was ratified. An amendment that Lincoln supported and made a part of the republican party platform in 1864.

[Martok]

The south was ready to secede over the issue of federal tariffs which they saw as federal "plundering" of the south, and as I recall Lincoln even alluded to an invasion of the southern states to enforce his duty to collect duties and imposts (or some such verbiage).

The history of the antebellum South has been pretty much hijacked by the civil rights actionistas. It was useful for them to portray the Old South as only interested in slavery, and it worked for them. It's just not history, it's political rhetoric.

I guess Martin Luther King was nothing more than a commie agitator to ya'll.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The south was ready to secede over the issue of federal tariffs which they saw as federal "plundering" of the south, and as I recall Lincoln even alluded to an invasion of the southern states to enforce his duty to collect duties and imposts (or some such verbiage).

The history of the antebellum South has been pretty much hijacked by the civil rights actionistas. It was useful for them to portray the Old South as only interested in slavery, and it worked for them. It's just not history, it's political rhetoric.

I guess Martin Luther King was nothing more than a commie agitator to ya'll.

Take off in that direction if you want, it wasn't my point, however.

[Martok]

The south was ready to secede over the issue of federal tariffs which they saw as federal "plundering" of the south, and as I recall Lincoln even alluded to an invasion of the southern states to enforce his duty to collect duties and imposts (or some such verbiage).

The history of the antebellum South has been pretty much hijacked by the civil rights actionistas. It was useful for them to portray the Old South as only interested in slavery, and it worked for them. It's just not history, it's political rhetoric.

I guess Martin Luther King was nothing more than a commie agitator to ya'll.

Take off in that direction if you want, it wasn't my point, however.

Hey that's the road YOU wanted to take. Unless you think MLK wasn't part of the civil rights movement.

Face it, there was a reason president Johnson thought the democrats were going to lose the South when he signed the Civil Rights act in 1964. I know racism existed all over the country but in the South it was much more of a problem. So far as I know Jim Crow laws pretty much only existed in the South.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hey that's the road YOU wanted to take. Unless you think MLK wasn't part of the civil rights movement.

Sorry, but you missed the point completely. There's more to the history than you appear to realize.

Face it, there was a reason president Johnson thought the democrats were going to lose the South when he signed the Civil Rights act in 1964. I know racism existed all over the country but in the South it was much more of a problem. So far as I know Jim Crow laws pretty much only existed in the South.

I don't care about the Civil Rights Era. I lived through it, I saw all that in the papers and on TV, if not in my own town. And, for your information, the strongest chapters of the Ku Klux Klan were based in Indiana. Elwood, to be precise, home town of Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential candidate in 1940.

[Martok]

And, for your information, the strongest chapters of the Ku Klux Klan were based in Indiana. Elwood, to be precise, home town of Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential candidate in 1940.

Yes Klan chapters existed outside the South. A Klan chapter existed ten miles from my house. But the Klan was started in the South and its first Grand Wizard was former confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And, for your information, the strongest chapters of the Ku Klux Klan were based in Indiana. Elwood, to be precise, home town of Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential candidate in 1940.

Yes Klan chapters existed outside the South. A Klan chapter existed ten miles from my house. But the Klan was started in the South and its first Grand Wizard was former confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest.

All information I already knew, thank you. Ever seen "Birth of a Nation"?

[Coito ergo sum]

Hey that's the road YOU wanted to take. Unless you think MLK wasn't part of the civil rights movement.

Sorry, but you missed the point completely. There's more to the history than you appear to realize.

Face it, there was a reason president Johnson thought the democrats were going to lose the South when he signed the Civil Rights act in 1964. I know racism existed all over the country but in the South it was much more of a problem. So far as I know Jim Crow laws pretty much only existed in the South.

I don't care about the Civil Rights Era. I lived through it, I saw all that in the papers and on TV, if not in my own town. And, for your information, the strongest chapters of the Ku Klux Klan were based in Indiana. Elwood, to be precise, home town of Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential candidate in 1940.

The Klan was big in Michigan too.

[Coito ergo sum]

You appear to have a narrow view of history on this point and you seek to attribute one and only one "meaning."

I have a full spectrum focus on history. I find those that wish to down play the importance of slavery are the ones who have a narrow view of history.

I haven't downplayed the importance of slavery. I made the point that it wasn't the only reason. You said it was. You're just, quite simply, wrong about that.

It reminds me of Dawkins "mother of all burkas" Those that wish to deny slavery as a major issue of the confederacy

I didn't deny it was a major issue.

and the Civil War like to wear their burkas to block that part out and keep their view as narrowly focused as possible.

You're the one who wants to focus solely on slavery.

It is simply not correct that Lincoln was elected, even in the slightest, to eradicate slavery or "right the wrongs" of the past. That is a gross oversimplification, as well as being simply wrong.

I see you're from the neo confederate or Libertarian school of historical revisionism.

I'm not from the South, I'm from New Jersey, and I'm not a libertarian. I'm a realist, who has actually studied some history beyond a survey course.

On February 27, 1860 Lincoln gave his Cooper Union speech in New York City where he mentions slavery 58 times. That speech has been credited with winning him the republican nomination.

Lincoln was more than willing to leave slavery alone in states that already had it. He opposed its expansion.

Why though? Because he was opposed to slave labor competing with free, white labor! That's why Illinois, his own state, where he served as a legislator, passed a law prohibiting black immigration.

He knew, and so did the confederates, if the institution of slavery was to survive it had to expand into other states/territories otherwise it would die. Lincoln wanted slavery to die a slow death.

"I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I... am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ..." Abraham Lincoln - September 18, 1858. He later suggested setting up a black colony in Central America in 1863 to ship off unwanted blacks. And, recall that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery. It ended slavery in states that seceded. Not all the slave states seceded. The slave states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, which had never declared a secession, did not have their slaves declared free by the Emancipation Proclamation.

Instead, thanks to Southern aggression, slavery was abolished more quickly than expected when the thirteenth amendment was ratified. An amendment that Lincoln supported and made a part of the republican party platform in 1864.

Yes, the Civil War probably sped up the elimination of slavery. However, that's a different question than the one you raised - that Lincoln was elected to do away with slavery and to correct the mistakes of the past. He wasn't.

[Coito ergo sum]

The south was ready to secede over the issue of federal tariffs which they saw as federal "plundering" of the south, and as I recall Lincoln even alluded to an invasion of the southern states to enforce his duty to collect duties and imposts (or some such verbiage).

The history of the antebellum South has been pretty much hijacked by the civil rights actionistas. It was useful for them to portray the Old South as only interested in slavery, and it worked for them. It's just not history, it's political rhetoric.

It's one of those dangerous topics, where if one fails to make black and white, simplistic, statements, then one is a "denier."

[Martok]

On February 27, 1860 Lincoln gave his Cooper Union speech in New York City where he mentions slavery 58 times. That speech has been credited with winning him the republican nomination.

Lincoln was more than willing to leave slavery alone in states that already had it. He opposed its expansion.

Why though? Because he was opposed to slave labor competing with free, white labor! That's why Illinois, his own state, where he served as a legislator, passed a law prohibiting black immigration.

Nope. While some whites opposed slavery on those grounds Lincoln opposed slavery because he thought it was unjust for someone to work and not get paid for it. He probably felt "empathy" towards slaves because of what his father did to him when he was younger. His father would hire him out to other farmers and whatever pay Abraham got went to his father instead of him. He always thought that was unfair.

In spite of those "black code" laws in Illinois seven thousand blacks lived in Illinois after the law was passed. Lincoln also had nothing to do with those laws.

He knew, and so did the confederates, if the institution of slavery was to survive it had to expand into other states/territories otherwise it would die. Lincoln wanted slavery to die a slow death.

"I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I... am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ..." Abraham Lincoln - September 18, 1858. He later suggested setting up a black colony in Central America in 1863 to ship off unwanted blacks. And, recall that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery. It ended slavery in states that seceded. Not all the slave states seceded. The slave states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, which had never declared a secession, did not have their slaves declared free by the Emancipation Proclamation.

The emancipation proclamation was a tactical war maneuver to prevent England and France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. By making the war about slavery and not just states rights Lincoln effectively stopped foreign powers from interfering. As much as England and France supported the Confederacy they did not want to enter a war on the side that was defending slavery.

Instead, thanks to Southern aggression, slavery was abolished more quickly than expected when the thirteenth amendment was ratified. An amendment that Lincoln supported and made a part of the republican party platform in 1864.

Yes, the Civil War probably sped up the elimination of slavery. However, that's a different question than the one you raised - that Lincoln was elected to do away with slavery and to correct the mistakes of the past. He wasn't.

The 1860 republican platform does make the expansion of slavery an issue. The Southern states broke away from the Union because of it. They used the states rights excuse but at its core the issue was slavery.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The 1860 republican platform does make the expansion of slavery an issue. The Southern states broke away from the Union because of it. They used the states rights excuse but at its core the issue was slavery.

Actually, it was the bitter Cheese vs Bacon division that caused the ACW. Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.