Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Therumancer said:
Arguably anyone from that time period could be considered racist, and that most certainly includes Lincoln (people continually act shocked when they learn things about him.... the winners get to write the history books kids, explain the war in their terms, have their propaganda remain in place, and see the monuments erected in their honor remember that).
We need to be more thoughtful in our assessment of people. Sure Lincoln was a racist if he was around today. However, you have to take into account what direction he was facing: he was clearly facing in a progressive direction.
And that's what's important when looking at history: you don't judge history by our standards today. History has been described as the story of change over time. If someone is disposed towards change in the right direction, you measure the person by that, not by some absolute standard.
I mean, by today's standards, the Magna Carta is a horribly oppressive document. But in the context of the times it stood for the progressive idea that even the sovereign is under the law, and that's why we put it in the lineage of progressive documents like the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, if there's anything wrong with how we interpret the Constitution today, it's that we interpret it in terms of the Founder's intent *in their day* and not according to how we have come to understand the ideals to which they were aspiring.
I don't disagree with you about judging history through modern eyes, I comment on people doing just that all the time. The point is that a lot of people see the Lincoln memorial and the inscription there and think he was some kind of 1990s era ultra-liberal democrat before his time, he was not. The entire thing is/was a giant propaganda piece covering up a very messy part of our history.
As far as your other comments go, your right in part about The Civil War, but really slavery wasn't a major issue in it.
Generally speaking people today like to act like the division between Slave States and Non-Slave states was an active conflict. It really wasn't anything like that, though there are a few documents and records that people like to pump up to make it seem that way. In reality a lot of it had to do with the fact that owning slaves and such wasn't practical (a liability) through a lot of the country. There were no enlightened modern liberals with current racial sensibilities back then, everyone was a bloody racist by today's standards. It was all about how far they took it.
One old comment I remember about the time period was how the big differance between the "North" and "South" on slavery was that if a black guy annoyed you in the North you could shoot him dead, or beat him down and nobody would say a word. In the South if you did the same thing you'd have to answer to his owner and at least pay recompose.
Blacks did not exactly escape through the Underground Railroad into a nirvana of tolerance, and oftentimes what they found on the other end could be just as bad, if not worse. Some of the guys at the end using the railroad to pick up their own cheap labour.
At any rate, the Civil War was fought 100% about economics. The basic issue was that the North (which by and large included the factories and coastal regions) wanted to produce their goods as cheaply as possible and sell the finished product at a huge profit. The resources (things like cotton) by and large came from the Southern States who charged an increasing amount of money for raw materials and the various early "captains of industry" had no real choice in the matter.
The conflict basically revolved around the producers of resources vs. the guys who processed those resources into finished products. The goverment wound up by and large siding with those who were developing and manufacturing the goods, rather than the farmers and resource providers in The South. Trade issues and arguements went back and forth, and there were attempts at regulation that eventually lead to the Southern States saying "Buzz off, we're going independant, and guess what, your still going to need to trade with us on our terms for what you need. Hah".
Needless to say this was a threat to the US because a huge amount of food and materials that the nation needed was going it's own way, and what's more it was making the federal goverment seem weak in resolving problems between states as it was unable to hold everyone together.
It was a very touchy subject, and one of the reasons why it divided families was that neither side was exactly wrong, and with things like this you can't just agree to disagree.
The rallying cry against slavery was to get freed slaves to join the military as cannon fodder. It was also used to justify what amounted to domestic terrorism. You don't just walk into a bunch of slaves, say "your all free" and then leave when they have known nothing except for slavery. The whole point was to get large bands of marauding slaves running around everywhere causing trouble (which happened) and wrecking the Southern infrastructure in ways that the military couldn't (or wouldn't).
What's more it provided a backdrop for the goverment to walk in and whack people (powerful southern families and such) and blame slaves for it. A few things have been written about how they would basically disguise northern blacks as escaped slaves to send them in to do horrible things without accontability.
Rather than doing it gradually and humanely, the way the slaves were freed says a lot, they themselves were weapons.
The trick being that even after The Civil War was over, The North wanted The South crippled and unable to act as a serious power where it could rebel again, while still keeping most of it's resources intact.
At least this is how I learned things. Like any piece of history it can be argued.
>>>----Therumancer--->
