rainee
New member
Sir, know what kind of person compares interest in civil history to a nut case who killed historic trees because of winning and losing college football teams?
It's so sport lovin and guyie it gives me the willies.
Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Sir, know what kind of person compares interest in civil history to a nut case who killed historic trees because of winning and losing college football teams?
It's so sport lovin and guyie it gives me the willies.
rainee
New member
Hi Alate,
I have no idea what you just said in "B" - i am about to go cry as I wash dishes at the idea I may be as difficult to understand as you just were, sigh.
Hope we can talk later
But now even that sentence makes me want to cry.
Is it the same sort who can't respond to an argument made by illustration while mimicking the form?
Here's the whole quote again:
You know what sort of person finds the Confederate battle flag ennobling? The same sort who poison trees because the college they never attended lost an ultimately meaningless game to its rival.
And here's what it means:
Neither have a meaningful connection to or demonstrated understanding of the thing that moves them to a sad and regrettable course of action.
rainee
New member
Then my guess is a sport lovin guy uses a comparison with a tree killing college football fanatic to show he does have a meaningful connection to seeing with hind sight that is 20/20 and he demonstrates understanding that the Victor not only spoils but gets to write history.
You can look at the moon and see a thing on fire, but I just told you precisely what I thought. So either do a better job of ignoring me or a better job of understanding me. In either event refrain from speaking for me. You have enough on your plate as it is.
You missed the ones where he wanted to ship all the blacks somewhere else. Example:
'If all earthly power were given to me [...] my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.'
rainee
New member
I think for now I will quote you, but thanx for bossing me again, I kinda missed it...kinda
Town says, "You can look at the moon and see a thing on fire"
And that is quite beautiful and perhaps he should use that as the title for a story with sadly horrific mistakes.
Maybe the opposite of it is what the South thought could happen if they tried to secede, for when they reached for the moon they got the ball of fire. But I think this description is also accurate about many views of the South's past.
I know of one man, born and reared in a Carolina who fought in the Revolutionary War. His reward was land in the area of Tennessee where he would settle it with others and produce a family. Out of all his offspring and he had many- only one would become a farmer, or rather have an orchard to produce wine, and he had slaves. His siblings were towns folk, running a family owned store mostly.
This one slave owner had an alienated son who stole some money his father had buried during this Civil War time and he went to Texas where the farm land was cheap to settle the land.
And there the people built farms and roads and small bridges to cover washed out road areas and before there was a town in this rural area they shared one church building taking turns getting to use it about once every third Sunday for their particular Christian faith.
When there were no slaves any more this man still grew cotton, a town was formed, three cotton gins existed, and he had families of color living in small houses on his farm, helping him work the fields with his family. No slaves, but what stopped cotton production wasn't the abolition of slavery - it was the tired exhausted land giving increasingly poor grade cotton.
I do not know how this man's relatives fared back in Tennessee because of the Civil War, but he left and the times that stopped him from growing any bigger or richer really had nothing to do with the North.
So when some idiot says why so many Southerners joined in seceding from the Union when so few had any slaves at all and were not plantation owners, I have to rely on what I know instead of his overly confident inability to understand.
The people did not have authority over them telling them to build the land - they listened to themselves. The towns, the churches the graveyards - they did it all. They were their own government.
This site below will say the poor southern farmers backed the secession because they all hoped to be wealthy plantation owners one day with slaves of their own.
Those who believe that are even more ignorant than the one who wrote it. He at least thought he had to come up with something since he was going to try to answer the question. He can't very well write an article and say, "I have no idea."
But the same kind of people who create their own volunteer fire department, build their own buildings and so on do not want someone infringing on their rights to self govern. Is that hard to understand, I don't think so.
And that is the kind of people who made up the South.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...e-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
Last edited:
The whole speech is worth reading and shows his struggle with the issue. It's also worth noting these remarks were delivered in 1858 and that his beliefs on the matter changed with time.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~zschrag/hist120spring05/lincoln_ottawa.htm
I like to look at the big picture of a person, the good, the bad and the ugly before trying to assess worth.
I like you very much.
Lincoln was a man of his time. He was considered a liberal in that time because he thought blacks deserved equal treatment under the law, freedom, and the right to whatever they earned by their own efforts.
Today, many of his ideas on race would be deplored. We've come a long way, but we shouldn't forget from where we've come.
Today, many of his ideas on race would be deplored. We've come a long way, but we shouldn't forget from where we've come.
Well, you said to forget your name. And then you kept talking about and to me. . . so if "bossing" means suggesting a consistency in approach, sure.
Right. When someone says, "Here's what I mean" and you feel obliged to say what he meant was something, anything else, you might want to reconsider or up your meds.
Like I said, slave owners took a calculated short term risk against a fairly certain failure looming in the distance. Everyone else did their best to survive and hold onto what they had that those men jeopardized.
It isn't physics. People fought for their land, their neighbors, for themselves ultimately. But then, they didn't start the war. War is a great way to unify people. And Americans have always found war glorious and noble. People took picnic baskets to watch the first large scale battle of the Civil War.
I'm sure that was true for some, not true for others and the simpler answer is they fought to survive the conflict started by others. A conquered people tend to find themselves dispossessed of lands and goods. And it's hard to raise a good crop with soldiers marching through it. Hard to sell to a closed market and so on.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Well, you were obscure. And trying to make your point by analogy tends to make things confusing.
The issues are complex but I think it's wrong to blame the north for what the south (though arguably the founding fathers) started.
rainee
New member
I can't argue at least at this time with what Town or Alate One have said...
So will y'all please look at a speech given by a politician that G gives a link to?
What the very articulate and gifted speaker says is not just what it may appear to be...
Here are the people he wants to vote for him especially since new territories some with incredibly rich soil are a very present reality for his time period.
ANTI-SLAVERY:
"Anti-slavery ("free soil") forces said the rich slaveholders would buy up all the good farmland and work them with black slaves, leaving little or no opportunity for non-slaveholders."
"PRO- SLAVERY"
" Pro-slavery forces said every settler had the right to bring his own property, including slaves, into the territory."
And akin to both:
"Popular Sovereignty" every place should be decided either anti or pro by the people who live there.
There are also those who really do care for people and not just a way for themselves and theirs to farm or work and live.
IF you had Lincoln 's Speech on paper and had three magic markers, a red, a blue and a yellow (since white would not work) could you highlight which sentences were for which types of listeners? Because I think the majority of what he said was actually for the first three types of listener.
Last edited:
The only belief that changed was to allow voting rights for black who served in the union war.
He still did not believe that blacks should have the same rights as whites.
There was also that proclamation...
yeah, that you dont seem to understand lincolns part of and beleifs about. Face it, he didnt agree with slavery, but also didnt believe them equal to whites which is why he wanted to ship them off but knew it was possible or feasible.
Thats bothers you doesnt it.
Sure I do. He struggled with the matter of race his entire life, despised slavery since his youth, and resolved to do something about it before he entered public service. When the opportunity presented itself, he acted.
He did indeed float this idea but abandoned it for any number of reasons--this is certainly true post 1862, after the Emancipation Proclamation, and he never again mentioned returning slaves to Liberia. He was a man of his time but was also ahead of it in many ways. It's fascinating (if pointless) to speculate about his role post-war as he guided the nation through Reconstruction.
Why would he keep mentioning what he admitted wasn't possible or feasible?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. He floated the idea, then decided against it. So...yeah. That's that.
The point i was making was that just because he didnt keep mentioning what he admitted wasn't possible or feasible, is no evidence that he didn't feel that way.