Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

Only the parts with which Birdwatcher agrees, to be sure.

I'm being ignored. I'm beginning to think you guys believe I don't take you seriously.

Lincoln's entire career from his very first political speech revolved around instituting a national bank, a tariff system, and industrial subsidies. It was known as the American System.

Seriously, read up on it. It was his life's work. So, was he genuinely anti-slavery, or was he merely interested in breaking the South so that he could institute his system? His statements on blacks and his intention to deport them to the wilds of Africa seems to indicate that he wasn't altruistically interested in the welfare of the black man.

You take very little seriously, unless there is brandy involved.

That won't be on the gov't mandated HS standards tests for brainwashing future generations, so why would a HS teacher who buys the gov't line of BS want to read such a thing? It might require actually critical thought...

What! Lincoln used the term "racial cleansing of the United States of America"???

Heck, not only was he WAY ahead of his time in his terminology, he'd find a place among some right here at the 'Fire....

Meanwhile he was expressing a view common at the time in both the North and South and also held by a significant number of Black folk.

Google on "American Colonization Society 1816"....

and....

"Liberia, West Africa, 1847"...

Heck, I would just Wiki it but I'm afraid you've already burned yer own bridges in that regard

Birdwatcher

So, your savior was flawed...go figure. Seems you're proving the oppositions point without even trying.

Congratulations. Now, perhaps you'll start learning along the way, though I doubt it.

Lot's of work goes into changing the past. I don't reckon it's a very good investment.

Kemosabe. Does it matter at all that I don't teach history?

Dude! Take a break! Why are you swinging and missing so wildly?

Likely not any more to you as it does to the students.

Consider one of the people you're arguing with here (not me) has a fuggin' PhD in History, concentrating on this era and subject. Of course, I'm sure your biased, admittedly limited research on the matter is far more comprehensive and compelling. Not.

AMEN!

So you were already aware of Lincoln's intentions to deport the blacks from America?

Tell me again how "biblical" his words are.

I will, thanks, tho it would prob'ly be boring as all get out.



More'n a few people of all intentions had long believed Blacks and Whites could never coexist, so Lincoln's intended deportations don't tell us much.

Even if that had been his stated intention all along I'd STILL take up arms on the Union side. Chattel slavery alone was toxic, and poisoned all it touched.

Birdwatcher

LOTS of people felt that way, I'll bet I could even find actual Quakers in there somewhere.



OK, here ya go...

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."

Birdwatcher

..and he'd prob'ly be the first to agree with me that anyone who actually brags on their own University degrees is necessarily an idiot

But I do appreciate his presence.



Um.. this is more like being a musician going to jam on a Sunday afternoon out under the oak trees in back of the bar at Luckenbach.

Nobody could GAS how long you studied music, all that matters is how well you play.


Specific to the War Between the States there's some damned fine amateur Historians out there. Heck just go to any reenactment, the conversations to be had there rock

Birdwatcher

A fool's errand. More slaves were imported to Brazil than the US. Slavery was even more entrenched there than in the US and conditions were far harsher. And slaves were imported there until 1856. Yet, by 1888 slavery was dead in Brazil where an ordered system of compensated emancipation was put into place.

There was no hugely bloody war. No history of recriminations and resentments. Today, Brazil is immensely racially integrated with there being few purely white or black persons in the whole country.

But, of course, that could have never happened here. But, then again, in 1800 slavery was legal in practically every country in the western world and hugely entrenched in all of the Americas. By 1900 is was legal practically nowhere in the western world and in only one country was a war "necessary" to accomplish that end.

You don't play worth a schit, as you're out of tune (flat) and out of key but can't be convinced of it.

Well,...they tell us that he should have been known as "The Great Deporter" instead of "The Great Emancipator".

Lincoln, June 26, 1857.

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization.

So Brazil's society was just like ours? Based upon similar principles? Just when exactly did they start such widespread miscegenation between the races anyhow and when would that have happened here?

Specific to our own case, chattel slavery had divided this nation in two since its very inception and OF COURSE it was a rank violation of American principle (which is exactly why anyone who came out in favor of it today would be regarded as a moron at best).

Slavery very nearly destroyed this nation, and in your view actually DID destroy it.

Once secession came I would have taken up arms to defend the Union, and damned sure could have never defended the Confederate Constitution.

Lots of the Southerners here go on and on about how they are so different from "Yankees". I'd tell 'em this; go visit rural folks all over the North, and then tell me how different these Yankees are from themselves.

On my epic bike trip last summer I'd guess I saw about as many rebel flags up north as I did in the South.

The Scots-Irish South without slavery? Maybe about like Vermont or New Hampshire in character. Without slavery, there most likely never would have been a war to begin with.

Birdwatcher