- Joined
- Nov 27, 2018
- Location
- Chattanooga, Tennessee
You answered mine. Thank you.
If I could I would, and I never know till I try.
Lubliner.
If I could I would, and I never know till I try.
Lubliner.
Stephen Douglas deserves much of the credit or blame for the route of the transcontinental railroad. Beginning as early as 1845, he insisted that it run from Chicago to a proposed terminus at San Francisco Bay.Bringing a national RR through the Gadsden Purchase into the new undeveloped territories into the center of the US and terminating, not in Memphis, nor Chicago nor Iowa, not St. Louis, but at or below Cairo Il--that would have made it a National road....that is what Congress should have been promoting.
Yes, Stephen A Douglas was a symptom of the nation's malady. But he was only a little bit of the sawdust in the gears. A National RR from California to the east could have been a great unifier. But it became another point of division.Stephen Douglas deserves much of the credit or blame for the route of the transcontinental railroad. Beginning as early as 1845, he insisted that it run from Chicago to a proposed terminus at San Francisco Bay.
The conversation drifted to reconstruction and other matters. I just went with the flow.All of this...took place well after secession.
There can't be anything in his speech about what the South was "fighting for" because at the time there was no war.let's not forget the confederate vice president's "cornerstone speech"...it specifically states the 'cause' of the south was fighting for slavery!
As @RobertP could tell, you are making a Tu quoque fallacy argument. {Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).}
It is true that white Northerners were complicit in slavery, and there was labor exploitation in the North.
But the point is that the Union, in alliance with African Americans, ended slavery in the United States. You can't take that away from them.
The North, led by the Republican Party, is responsible for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The gains of Reconstruction; and of the Civil Rights movement 100 years after the Civil War; were based in a very large part on those Amendments. You can't take that away from them.
At the end of the day, I am so blessed, that I am not somebody's property, that I have privileges and protections my ancestors could only dream of. You want me to feel bad for these gains, but I can't and I don't.
Having said that, it would be inaccurate to say that emancipation was solely a construct of moral imperative. Northerners and Southerners should certainly be taught that racism pervaded the North and South. But that doesn't mean that the end of slavery was any less significant or momentous, or that we should look at emancipation as something that just happened and nobody deserves credit for it. We should all celebrate emancipation and have a realistic understanding of how it occurred.
I would think that sentiment would be embraced by all. We'll see.
- Alan
Raid? What did he get out of Maryland besides yankee lead?
P.S. by the way, I think the word James is looking for is Mainsgtream History. Not new of course, but perfectly adequate for its purpose.
James Lut
Actually James Lutzweiler assertion is undercut by the Yangtze River Patrol thread in st least two ways. James Lutzweiler never even mentioned the Yangtze River Patrol. The Yangtze River Patrol from 1854 through at least 1865 appears to have consisted of only four small ships of less then 500 sailors in all. The exact sources are listed on my thread. If you or James Lutzweiler can find evidence that the Yangtze River Patrol was larger then please post the sources.
James Lutzweiler had not provided any evidence that China which per previously posted sources only accounted for two percent of American foreign trade is somehow the major theme if American history.
James Lutzweiler had not answered my question how if seizing California and establishing a Southern TRR was the main reason for the ACW then how was all that supposed to be accomplished by sending just one thousand one hundred men to seize at a minimum the present day states of New Mexico,Arizona and at least San Bernardino and Los Angeles Angeles County California.
Leftyhunter
All of this -threats of extermination, disfranchisement, land confiscation- took place well after secession. How does discussing them further our attempt to understand whether or not slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War?
In the beginning Reconstruction was the instrument that gave former slaves the plantation land they once work...but in a very short time, the courts awarded the land back to the plantation owners. the institution of share cropping was born...a marriage between owners and free black men. by 1870, cotton export were back to the 1850 level, and by 1920 over 80% of black farmers were sharecroppers
No one claims that slavery was limited to the South and was not a national disgrace. What is asserted is that while some states saw fit to end the practice through at least a lengthy, gradual process, other states chose to cling to the practice and even destroy the Union and establish a new nation so that they could practice slavery in perpetuity and extend its reach.
We should, indeed, recognize the national 'sin'; but we ought not forget that some failed to see it as a 'sin', but rather saw it as "a positive good".
And so, we have seen your analysis of how to interpret History. You Cherry Pick, what you see as good and eliminate the rest. Is it not important that the North had NO Intention to disturb Slavery when they marched South? Is it not important the North Had No Intention of letting the Emancipated Negroes remain here after Emancipation? Lincoln used Slavery as a negotiable Principle, up until the Spring of 65. Lincoln repeatedly stated that Emancipation was a War Measure.
Is it not Important, that the Republicans bartered away all of the gains, of the Negro, that only a few of them agreed in principle to begin with? Is, it not important the the Republicans, leading the Federal Government, lead the Country back to White Supremacy, by Nullifying the Civil Rights Acts, Banning the Chinese, a whole race of people, and led the massacres of the Native Americans.
I'm sorry, I don't see how the White Man or the Federal Government can take but very little credit for Saving the Negro, Chinese, or Native American. I think people who try to put forth this Narrative, and doing a disservice to the accomplishments these minority groups, did for themselves. No Historian, that I have read, has ever proclaimed that the North would in anyone's wildest dream, have fought a War for the Negro.
War would of ended Slavery, no matter what happened. The Institution started to unravel as Confederates used Slaves to build fortifications. So, the Context of these events have meaning. But I guess in the end, the TOV conquers all.
Thread starter | Title | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
GNMP Posts 3D Virtual Tours of Five Historic Buildings | The Event Wire: Reenactments, Walks, Shows, & More | 0 |