|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted December 24, 2003 08:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Huh? The Commander in Chief is not suppose to point to his war victories and success as reason for reelection??? That wouldn’t make sense.
Depends on what he/she went to war for in the first place, example in Thatcher, she clearly needed to fight in the falklands to boost her popularity, she withdrew naval vessels operating in the area and almost directly insinuated that Britain would not fight over the falklands, the Argentines invaded and wham! Thatcher gets to defend poor molested Falkland islanders (most of whom didn't even dislike Argentina before the war) and the British way of life and gets re-elected. Bush I don't know about, I'm sure he'd like us to believe this was solely for the benevolence of removing a bad world leader, but given the rumours surrounding the profits his cronies are making and the lack of danger Iraq posed coupled with the lack of action against our own allies who are in no way democratic? I reserve my judgement.
A perfect example would be Lincoln actually. Whilst Lincoln personally suported anti-slavery laws, the law brought into effect in the south after the war was very much NOT what he wanted. Also Lincoln's actions were only supported by a smaller section of his party than you like to portray, emancipation was a minority issue in Lincoln's government and it's eventual issuing had much more to do with political manouvering than true desire of his party. It may have come about anyway, but the reality was more that most people simply didn't care or supported slavery in some border states.
And if you think Russia fell simply because of Regan's work then you're simply being over simplistic about the way that Russia operated. Considering Regan's other actions around the globe I think I'll pass on my total endorsement of the party as the saviour of mankind thanks 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 24, 2003 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A perfect example would be Lincoln actually. Whilst Lincoln personally suported anti-slavery laws, the law brought into effect in the south after the war was very much NOT what he wanted. Also Lincoln's actions were only supported by a smaller section of his party than you like to portray, emancipation was a minority issue in Lincoln's government and it's eventual issuing had much more to do with political manouvering than true desire of his party. It may have come about anyway, but the reality was more that most people simply didn't care or supported slavery in some border states.
Acctually, a slim majority of the party supported the strong anti-slavery views. The Republican Party was created in 1860 when the Democratic Party was collapsing. The Democrats couldn't decide on one candidate, so they divided into three groups. The Republicans had no hesitation in choosing Illinois laywer Abraham Lincoln as their candidate.
Abolitionists filled the ranks of the new Republican Party. Lincoln won with 40% of the vote, which is a solid victory when there are 4 candidates. When a president was elected from a party that seemed pladged to end slavery, the soulth began thinking life outside the union might be better. And so came the Civil War.
About Reagan, the USSR had many internal problems before Reagan did anything. Reagan was like a nail in the coffin though. A shame he can't remember being president anymore...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 24, 2003 06:08 PM |
|
|
Slim majority is still less than Dargon seems to be indicating. Even so the country at large didn't seem at all bothered on the issue and some people in the border states in the north would not have been that happy either. I don't quite think Lincoln was pledging before the war to absolutely end slavery, and certianly not in the form that happened after 1865 as he realised that political problems would kill his re-election chances. I believe his policy was more gradual and with less economic fallback on the south than what happened.
Perhaps btw if republicans are to be elected they can inform us when they will remove the dangerous and tyranical regimes they support as well...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 24, 2003 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Slim majority is still less than Dargon seems to be indicating. Even so the country at large didn't seem at all bothered on the issue and some people in the border states in the north would not have been that happy either.
I was refering to your post, saying it was a minority issue, which was incorrect. People in the north weren't thrilled with the thought of thousands of uneducated blacks running around in their states. Some states even closed their states to blacks, but they didn't want slavery.
Quote:
Perhaps btw if republicans are to be elected they can inform us when they will remove the dangerous and tyranical regimes they support as well...
Maybe Democrats could do that too...oh nevermind...who am I kidding? Democrats"(Liberals) can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
— Ann Coulter I like those quotes
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 24, 2003 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was refering to your post, saying it was a minority issue, which was incorrect.
It was not incorrect, most people did not want an instant end to slavery, most white people probably didn't give a damn either way in the north. And you are wrong, some northern states and/or portions of them did support slavery, maryland in parts for example. Not wanting slavery in their state and actively abolishing it throughout the US are two entirely seperate things. One is passive and uncaring, the other requires action and belief.
I won't even comment on the other ridiculous generalisation that masquerades as a serious point in your post.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 24, 2003 07:00 PM |
|
|
Why would people flood the ranks of the Republican Party, who wanted an end to slavery, if the people did't care either way. The fact that Lincoln was elected should be proof enough that people did care to some degree, they weren't fanatical but that doesn't mean they didn't care.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 24, 2003 07:15 PM |
|
|
Unless you've missed it I've already said Lincoln's plans were more phased, and by extension more popular than those that occurred. Secondly, most people and many in his party placed the Union higher than slavery, even Lincoln himself did this and stated such during the war. McCellan himself nearly won the 1864 campaign on that basis until those around him stupidly hijacked the cause into being peace at all costs with the south.
You should look more closely at what precisely people thought lincoln offered them in 1860, his party were anti-slavery, he though could not simply overnight free slaves, and certainly would not either. Even the emancipation proclomation is heavily ambigious allowing conditions on the ending of slaves and concessions. People did not expect what happened in 1865, people did not believe in 1860 that slavery came before the union.
The proclomation was a political tool, not by lincoln's desire, but by political reality. Besides this, something tells me that people don't always vote for parties on one sole issue, lincoln's election and his party's popularity was on more basis than simply that of slavery.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 02:43 PM |
|
|
|
Privatehudson where did you learn all that history?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 04:02 PM |
|
|
Books on the Civil war mostly, British and American. Some like "the civil war day by day" are good for timelines, especially since they cover pre and post war periods also (though obviously in less depth)
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 07:04 PM |
|
|
I get my Civil War knowledge from those same sources.
I have Civil War! America Becomes One Nation and I just got The Secret War FOr The Union: The Untold Story Of Military Intelligence In The Civil War
Haven't read much of the second one yet, but it seems like it should be good.
____________
|
|
consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 26, 2003 07:59 PM |
|
|
You two are completely off topic
Ok fellas,Private Hudson and Wolfman take the civil war debate elsewhere please.
I'm an American and I know much about my country's history. This thread is about the war in Iraq. Stay focused you guys. I would be glad to hear both your comments in a thread dedicated to the American civil war but this is not the thread for it. Some of the the issues on the table for this thread cover areas such as:
1. Why attack Iraq now and not following the gulf war of the invasion of Kuwait?
2. Is it coincidence that the son of the man who began the counterattack is finishing it?
3. What economical and political interests does America have in the so called "regime change" of Iraq?
4. What role should the United Nations play in the invasion of one of its members by another member?
5. What kind of an impact will this have on both the Islamic majority of the people there and the middle eastern region as a whole both sociological and economically?
Like I said you guys have great comments on the civil war and I'd love to hear more from both of you but please designate a seperate thread for that. =)
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 08:09 PM |
|
|
If you pay attention to previous pages here you'll notice that being off topic is a matter of course in this thread. You have no right to tell me what to discuss or what not to discuss, take your orders somewhere where you are the mod
And nothing I've yet read directly contradicts what I have stated here, so my thoughts on the civil war and the reasoning behind it's causes remain the same at this time.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so called "regime change"
Is it not a regime change? Why the quotes? What would you call it?
And yes, if you look through the pages of this thread, many different topics have been discussed, Civil War being a part of that.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 08:17 PM |
|
|
Exactly, the thread has a kind of roving commission here, and since neither the mods or creator seem to mind I see no reason for me to worry about it either 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 08:22 PM |
|
|
We agree on something! Gasp!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 08:28 PM |
|
|
Can't you tell it's christmas time?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 26, 2003 08:30 PM |
|
|
That must be it!
But we should stay discussing something at least...
____________
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2003 06:19 PM |
|
|
"Books on the Civil war mostly, British and American. Some like "the civil war day by day" are good for timelines, especially since they cover pre and post war periods also (though obviously in less depth) "
I was thinking history in more general terms ,i.e not only
Civil War.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 30, 2003 07:11 PM |
|
|
School and working in the library during a free period at school(boring in study hall) so I just went and looked for books that might eventually give me information to beat PH. If you want to know about history, open a book...or 2, or 3...
____________
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted December 30, 2003 09:48 PM |
|
|
The end to, or at least the illegalization of, slavery was instantaneous, with the 15th Amendment. The reason that the end of slavery was so gradual was because the plantation owners in the South would simply reinstate their slaves once the Federal officers sent to enforce emancipation were gone. Some slaves, the history books say, were emancipated over ten times before that emancipation was permanent.
The phases that Lincoln progressed through were more along the lines of giving blacks equal rights than they were to end slavery. Thus the reason for the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. IMO, the only reason he waited two amendments to end slavery is because he was afraid of a lack of cooperation of the already volatile South.
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
