lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
makingmusic476 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck.
|
How can you expect a government elected by and consisting of the people to be morally superior to the general public? If a majority of the people don't want to act this way, then why are they electing officials that will force them to act this way?
|
Well if you have noticed most candidates don't give away where they stand on the issues until they get elected. They take a middle of the road approach and they also switch positions on a issue sometime after getting elected. When Lincoln got elected even though he didn't approve of slavery he said he would not end it he just wouldn't allow it to spread to the new territories. After the civil war started due to south carolina trying to secede from the union he saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by using the war to free the slaves.
But you asked a good question and it does happen. In recent years polls have shown that most americans are in favor of legislation that prevents illegal immigration and terrorists from coming in to the country even if it discriminates against hispanics and people of arab descent. Of course the federal government isn't going to pass any legislation that discriminates on those groups though.
Polls have recently came out saying that most americans approve of the immigration bill in arizona even though it has gotten a lot of opposition the majority seem to support it. A few days ago Obama mentioned that discrimination shouldn't be considered acceptable when trying to capture illegal immigrants so go figure.
|
So... we can trust these people to do good... because they lie to us directly to our faces when they want us to vote for them?
That's your arguement.
Also, you should REALLY do some research on Lincoln... because your interpretation of why he got rid of slavery... is just kinda funny.
|
I said they take a middle of the road approach until they get elected not giving away their positions. For example candidates say they are for family values which sounds good but they haven't given anything away about what those values are. They say they are for education and reform which are populist messages but they give absolutely nothing away about what they are going to do. While they do that they also try to show that they are the most qualified for the position that's why governors tout that they have executive experience running their respective states. Some tout a expansive educational background to show that they have intellectual capacity to take on tough challenges.
Which part about Lincoln did I get wrong? Was it the part where I said he intially made the civil war about preserving the union or was it the part where I said he seized the opportunity to free the slaves?
|
The "seized the oppurtunity to free the slaves" part. He didn't do it because he wanted to save the slaves. He did it beacuse it was a political gambit that forced the British and French to withhold support from the south. By reframing the Civil War about slavery he kept foreign support out of the war.
Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves, thought they were inferior, and planned to send them all back to Africa.
|
I admit I'm a little rusty in my US history it's been years but you sound rusty yourself. Lincoln campaigned to stop the expansion of slavery and he thought slavery would eventually die out on its own. He also considered negotiating with the states to buy out all of the slaves those points I do remember.
Now to your point about him making it about slavery to keep foreign support away you are just wrong. True the confederate wanted support from Britain and France but the United States warned them that if they supported the confederacy it would mean war with the united states and since the us had a formidable navy they would cut off the shipment of supplies to and from Britain.
In fact this is a large part of the reason the North beat the south they toke over ports and blocking the movement of supplies I believe it was called the ananconda plan.
Finally if he didn't care about the slaves he would have said slavery is allowed to expand in to new territories and he wouldn't have considered buying out the slaves from the slave owners.
|
Nah, i'm not rusty on it at all.
You think the British and French were afraid of the US Navy? Seriously? Either one of their Navy's would of worked over the US Navy something fierce.
The reason he didn't allow slavery to expand is because he was from a free state. Free states and Slave states were fighting for control of the union because the northerners were putting huge tarrifs on goods the south wanted to buy for Europe that they used in their argicultural trades. So the South would instead be forced to buy from the Industrial North.
By stopping the expansion of slavery in the west you were creating more "Free Industrial" states... which means the "Free Industrial" states would win out and the Tarrifs would remain in place.
It was a pure economic and political move. Like most moves politicians make when they claim morality. The actual morality of the action is purely incidental.
If you study him, you'll realize he thought that black people could never be integrated in white society. He didn't want to free the slaves... he wanted to kick them out of the country.
|
I'm not saying you are wrong but do you have a link to prove he believed that black people could never be integrated in white society and wanted to kick them out of the country? I have never heard of this before I remember hearing Liberia or some place similar to it was set up to give slaves an option to go back to Africa if they wanted to.
I agree with you that most moves are economic and political. George Washington, Franklin, and others wanted to break away from Britain because of those motives you mentioned even though most people in the colonies were perfectly happy being ruled by Britain.
|
Not at the moment... but I'm sure I can find one. It's fairly well known.
It was pretty much the belief of the time.
Even the most progressive of the time saw blacks as inherently inferior and unable to cope in white society... the big question was, do we stick with the immorality of slavery or confer on them some sort of lesser status.
Here is a decent one
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
Heck, the "equalization" efforts after Lincoln's death were likely more about keeping those who once left the union in check then anything else.
You can find these all over the internet though, or in pretty much any biography about Lincoln.
