Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Agreed, DJ. That would would make a great historical novel, if not an actual movie.
There were many of these "communities" put together, testing some reasonable and silly theories of interaction during American history. I'm thinking of Michigan's House of David, your cited example, the Shakers, Koresh's group (I forget the name, but you know who I mean), the Amana Colonies (which survive today as a corporate entity).
If you have some interest in opening a thread on the experimental societies, I'll wager that it would draw some considerable interest.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Karl Marx was writing for an American newspaper about the Civil War and had dismissed it as a continutaion of the Merchant's revolution and of no interest to the "International working class", until the Emancipation Declaration went out.
He then stated that the war and it's reasons would be changed as a result of the document that freed no one.
He was right. The legend is what sells.
There is a movie ON DEMAND if you get Comcast called CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA. It is about what would have happened if the South had won the war.
They don't get into the sterilization plans of Indiana that were used by Hitler, but they do get into blackface, stereotypes used to sell products, in other words, all the thing that actually happened after the North won.
Slavery exists all over the world today, from India to the Middle East. We have relations with all those countries.
Yet we say nothing about slavery today.
Such an important issue, that was dropped like a hot skillet!
Karl Marx was writing for an American newspaper about the Civil War and had dismissed it as a continutaion of the Merchant's revolution and of no interest to the "International working class", until the Emancipation Declaration went out.
DJ, could you please provide the article and the newspaper it was in?
He then stated that the war and it's reasons would be changed as a result of the document that freed no one.
He was right. The legend is what sells.
There is a movie ON DEMAND if you get Comcast called CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA. It is about what would have happened if the South had won the war.
They don't get into the sterilization plans of Indiana that were used by Hitler, but they do get into blackface, stereotypes used to sell products, in other words, all the thing that actually happened after the North won.
Slavery exists all over the world today, from India to the Middle East. We have relations with all those countries.
Yet we say nothing about slavery today.
Such an important issue, that was dropped like a hot skillet!
Whose "we" DJ? Are you sure none of us say nothing about slavery today?
I know of some religious organizations that take up collections so that representatives can go to the Sudan and by children out of slavery.
My good friend Tommy here on this forum convinced me to never buy chocolate from a certain US candy maker ever again because the coco leaves harvested are done so by slave labor.
We each do what we can within the limits of our individual means and the dictates of our own conscience.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
George Mason University Ph.D. candidate (public policy program)Phil Magness has had this terrific article published in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. It shows that, until his dying day, Dishonest Abe was hard at work trying to organize the colonization (i.e., deportation) of all the freed slaves.
One morning in the waning days of the Civil War, Major General Benjamin F. Butler called upon Abraham Lincoln at the White House. An obviously concerned Lincoln approached the general in private, acting "very much disturbed" in thought.1 Questioning Butler, the president remarked, "But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?"2 With the hostilities of the previous four years drawing to a close, Lincoln's attention now turned to the condition and future of the emancipated slaves. "I fear a race war," he confided, while expressing concern that the enlisted black soldiers of the Union army would "be but little better off with their masters than they were before" if no action was taken to prevent it. The solution, he observed, was to be found in a program of colonization. Continued Lincoln, "I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes."3
Ever thought Lincoln was brainstorming trying to plan ahead if there were issued between the former Color troops and white southern after the war. Remember, they brainstorm back then as we do today but without a fancy name like brainstorming.
Think of all the issues Lincoln must have been running through his mind after the war was over. I bet he was trying to anticipate what will happen when free slaves and whites in the south had to mingle together as equals.
I believe Lincoln was trying to anticipate the future in the south and was using Butler to sound his ideas off and asking him his thoughts as well.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
I believe Lincoln was trying to anticipate the future in the south and was using Butler to sound his ideas off and asking him his thoughts as well.
It is quite certain that Lincoln always considered future consequences of his actions. I doubt very much that he was using Butler in any capacity other than in Ben's political clout in Massachusetts.
I'll remind you to note who wrote the account of Butler's audience with Lincoln.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Karl Marx was writing for an American newspaper about the Civil War and had dismissed it as a continutaion of the Merchant's revolution and of no interest to the "International working class", until the Emancipation Declaration went out.
He then stated that the war and it's reasons would be changed as a result of the document that freed no one.
He was right. The legend is what sells. ...
Well, this is just wrong. For example, here is the closing of an article Marx wrote almost a year before the Battle of Antietam and the first Emancipation Proclamation:
=====
Written: Late October, 1861;
Source: Marx/Engels Collected Works, Volume 19;
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964;
First Published: Die Presse No. 306, November 7, 1861;
Online Version: Marxists.org 1999;
Transcription: Bob Schwarz and Tim Delaney;
(see Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels 1861
Writings on the U. S. Civil War at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...-war/index.htm for this and similar Marx articles)
...
When, only recently, Lincoln pusillanimously revoked Frémont's Missouri proclamation on the emancipation of Negroes belonging to the rebels, this was done solely out of regard for the loud protest of the “loyal” slaveholders of Kentucky. However, a turning point has already been reached. With Kentucky, the last border state has been pushed into the series of battlefields between South and North. With the real war for the border states in the border states themselves, the question of winning or losing them is withdrawn from the sphere of diplomatic and parliamentary discussions. One section of slaveholders will throw off the mask of loyalty; the other will content itself with the prospect of a financial compensation such as Great Britain gave the West Indian planters. Events themselves drive to the promulgation of the decisive slogan-emancipation of the slaves.
That even the most hardened Democrats and diplomats of the North feel themselves drawn to this point, is shown by some announcements of very recent date. In an open letter, General Cass, Secretary of State for War under Buchanan and hitherto one of the most ardent allies of the South, declares emancipation of the slaves the conditio sine qua non of the Union's salvation. In his last Review for October, Dr. Brownson, the spokesman of the Catholic party of the North, on his own admission the most energetic adversary of the emancipation movement from 1836 to 1860, publishes an article for Abolition.
“If we have opposed Abolition heretofore,” he says among other things, “because we would preserve the Union, we must a fortiori now oppose slavery whenever, in our judgment, its continuance becomes incompatible with the maintenance of the Union, or of the nation as a free republican state."
Finally, the World, a New York organ of the diplomats of the Washington Cabinet, concludes one of its latest blustering articles against the Abolitionists with the words:
“On the day when it shall be decided that either slavery or the Union must go down, on that day sentence of death is passed on slavery. If the North cannot triumph without emancipation, it will triumph with emancipation."
=====
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I no longer have my International Publishers collection of Marx's writings, nor can I stand wading through his boring rubbish to find a quote, so yours will do Trice.
What roles did Lincoln's mental illness play in his decisions? Suicidal impulses, depression, manic depression. Quite a cocktail of problems.
In the era previous a person was thought to just "overcome" depression. Doctors told the patient to "snap out of it". The use of an entire range of drugs on the problems that plagued Lincoln speaks loudly that he didn't just "snap out of it".
In the EU today, countries apply for membership. Once approved, they are allowed to leave when they want.
He then stated that the war and it's reasons would be changed as a result of the document that freed no one.
Since you don't have the source for this statement, can you at least tell us whether the attitude that the Ep "freed no one" is Marx's, as your sentence seems to imply...... or yours?
Quote:
...nor can I stand wading through his boring rubbish to find a quote...
If Marx's attitudes on the war are "boring rubbish", why is it that you offered them up in the first place? Its a little like a prosecutor who puts a woman of the night on the stand to testify for him, but when she falls apart on cross examination, he pleads "Who can believe the lying whore, anyway."
I no longer have my International Publishers collection of Marx's writings, nor can I stand wading through his boring rubbish to find a quote, so yours will do Trice.
Gee, I've noticed this is very common behavior on the Web for some people. They will:
1) Make a bold statement;
2) then, when someone points out that their statement is baseless, say something meaningless and avoid either defending what they said in the first place or admitting they were wrong.
Looks like you like to do that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
What roles did Lincoln's mental illness play in his decisions? Suicidal impulses, depression, manic depression. Quite a cocktail of problems.
Then they like -- having said something empty and meaningless as above -- to quickly rush to say something else, wildly divergent, and change the subject -- thus avoiding the unpleasant necessity of either defending what they said in the first place or admitting they were wrong.
Looks like you enjoy doing that, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
In the era previous a person was thought to just "overcome" depression. Doctors told the patient to "snap out of it". The use of an entire range of drugs on the problems that plagued Lincoln speaks loudly that he didn't just "snap out of it".
Then they rush to continue down this entirely unrelated line to put distance betwen them and what they said originally.
Looks like you like to do that, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
In the EU today, countries apply for membership. Once approved, they are allowed to leave when they want.
Why do you suppose the EU's model is working?
Then they often like to throw in a complete non sequitor, usually asking a question as if it somehow implies they have some secret knowledge they can't share with the rest of us.
Looks like you have the technique down pat.
If you actually want to discuss the issues of the Civil War, that's great. But to do that, you would have to actually work as a participant in the process, with all the pain and disappointment that comes in the free exchange of ideas and the discovery of flaws in a position. You seem to want to avoid that at all costs. If I am wrong, please go back and address the real issue of your statement about Karl Marx.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Since you don't have the source for this statement, can you at least tell us whether the attitude that the Ep "freed no one" is Marx's, as your sentence seems to imply...... or yours?
If Marx's attitudes on the war are "boring rubbish", why is it that you offered them up in the first place? Its a little like a prosecutor who puts a woman of the night on the stand to testify for him, but when she falls apart on cross examination, he pleads "Who can believe the lying whore, anyway."
Cedarstripper
Since DJ Psychomike says that he has no source to quote from, here's a bit of Marx written in August of 1862 -- the month before Antietam, and before the Emancipation Proclamation:
========
At the present moment, when secession’s stocks are rising, the spokesmen of the border states are making even greater claims. However, Lincoln’s appeal to them, in which he threatens them with inundation by the Abolition party, shows that things are taking a revolutionary turn. Lincoln knows what Europe does not know, that it is by no means apathy or giving way under pressure of defeat that causes his demand for 300,000 recruits to meet with such a cold response. New England and the Northwest, which have provided the main body of the army, are determined to force on the government a revolutionary kind of warfare and to inscribe the battle-slogan of “Abolition of Slavery!” on the star-spangled banner. Lincoln yields only hesitantly and uneasily to this pressure from without, but he knows that he cannot resist it for long. Hence his urgent appeal to the border states to renounce the institution of slavery voluntarily and under advantageous contractual conditions. He knows that only the continuance of slavery in the border states has so far left slavery untouched in the South and prohibited the North from applying its great radical remedy. He errs only if he imagines that the “loyal” slaveholders are to be moved by benevolent speeches and rational arguments. They will yield only to force.
So far, we have only witnessed the first act of the Civil War — the constitutional waging of war. The second act, the revolutionary waging of war, is at hand.
Meanwhile, during its first session Congress, now adjourned, decreed a series of important measures that we shall briefly summarise here.
Apart from its financial legislation, it passed the Homestead Bill, which the Northern masses had long striven for in vain; in accordance with this Bill, part of the state lands is given gratis to the colonists, whether indigenous or new-comers, for cultivation. It abolished slavery in Columbia and the national capital, with monetary compensation for the former slaveholders. Slavery was declared “forever impossible” in all the Territories of the United States. The Act, under which the new State of West Virginia is admitted into the Union, prescribes abolition of slavery by stages and declares that all Negro children born after July 4, 1863, are born free. The conditions of this emancipation by stages are on the whole borrowed from the law that was enacted 70 years ago in Pennsylvania for the same purpose . By a fourth Act all the slaves of rebels are to be emancipated, as soon as they fall into the hands of the republican army. Another law, which is now being put into effect for the first time, provides that these emancipated Negroes may be militarily organised and put into the field against the South. The independence of the Negro republics of Liberia and Haiti has been recognised and, finally, a treaty on the abolition of the slave trade has been concluded with Britain.
Thus, no matter how the dice may fall in the fortunes of war, even now it can safely be said that Negro slavery will not long outlive the Civil War.
=====
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
