Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I Saw "Lincoln" Today [View all]ieoeja
(9,748 posts)141. A few disagreements.
Minor quibble "negotiate with Robert E. Lee" makes no sense as he was a military general. And if your presumed negotiation took place before the Union first chose to engage Confederate forces, not even a very important general. Lee would have still been running around West Virginia getting his ass kicked by the local hillbillies. Or running logistics after getting his ass kicked and before the USA Army entered the war.
What about Kentucky and Tennessee neither of which had a consensus?
What about New Mexico? The CSA considered that rightfully theirs, but the residents overwhelmingly supported the USA.
Add Maryland and Rhode Island into the "what about" mix as well.
Even Missouri. The overwhelming majority supported the USA, but were outgunned by a minority who established a pro-CSA state government.
If you solve all those problems, there is plenty of evidence that the CSA was after MORE slaves. The entire stated purpose for two invasions of Cuba was to capture the island's slaves. The south was dominated by Norman aristocrats who setup the plantation/slave economic model as a modern adaptation of their feudal model back in the old world. They opposed manufacturing and anything that eased commerce, like canals, railroads and public schools, to maintain this system. No way in hell they were going to sell their slaves.
And what about that military aggressiveness? Southern Norman freebooters conquered Tejas. They conquered Baja California then invaded Sonoma causing them to lose Baja. They conquered Guatemala then lost it when they enslaved all the free Blacks there. With no northern Anglo-Saxon restraint, the Norman/Celtic CSA would never have gotten along peaceably with their neighbors.
There were also a couple of proposals for replacing African slaves with Anglo-Saxons from the north. Though that seems to have been a fairly fringe effort.
For that matter southern states did not spend the pre-war years defending slavery in the south, they spent it trying to spread slavery to the north.
The question of "let them go peacefully" points both ways. The assumption with that question is that the south wanted independance. There is some evidence that the south only wanted independance long enough to build an army to conquer the north. So you have to posit that question to both sides.
Wrote a Richmond newspaper at news of Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, "it was never a quest for independance, but one of conquest!"
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
150 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'd love to hear about what they said.That film was beautifully designed. The set decoration
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#135
Wife and I tried to see it at the Landmark yesterday. All remaining shows were sold out when
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#36
Predicting history is tricky - what if the Civil War prolonged the suffering of Southern blacks ???
LVZ
Nov 2012
#89
I'm curious where American kids are supposed to be getting all of this in-depth information...
OldDem2012
Nov 2012
#34
It Didn't Think Me Thirty Five Years From The First Time I Studied Lincoln To Know His Views On Race
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#27
LOL - I think you win the award for Understatement of the Millennium with
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#38
Sherman Is The First "Modern" General To Employ The "Total War" Concept/nt
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#48
The movie is based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography\history, btw. Lincoln's
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#37
the movie was based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's acclaimed book "Team of Rivals" so it has
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#136
I Think Spielberg Released It After The Election Because He Didn't Want To Be Seen
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#41
My dining table was bequeathed to my grandfather and grandmother by the granddaughter
kestrel91316
Nov 2012
#54
"...of blood drawn with the lash, shall be repaid by another drawn by the sword."
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#60
No It Was Primarily Fought Because Traitorous Southerners Seceded./nt
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#68
If You Were Black And Your Children Were Sold Like Animals From The Same Litter
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#87
While All This Is Occurring Blacks Folks Are Continued To Be Treated Like Chattel
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#92
in the short term, yes, in the longer term, Southern blacks may have suffered more ... n/t
LVZ
Nov 2012
#93
Is it Lincoln's fault effective anesthesia and penicillin did not yet exist? (n/t)
Maplegrass
Nov 2012
#106
Is It Lincoln's Fault That The South Seceded From The Union Because They Wanted To Own Other Folks?
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#117
Doesn't The Scholarship Suggest Lincoln Abandoned His Repatriation Plans Prior To His Assassination?
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#118
Why didn't the Emancipation Declaration include outlawing slavery in the North? nt
Bonobo
Dec 2012
#127
I "think" he was the one who was beaten so badly by a southernor in the House of Representatives
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#132
Thanks. I was really uncertain about this one. Since Stevens was an abolitionist and it looked
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#145
There Was An Argument How About Many Lives Needed To Be Sacrificed To Free The Slaves
DemocratSinceBirth
Dec 2012
#131
Saw it this past sunday. Great movie. Impeachable offense for Lincoln?
Filibuster Harry
Dec 2012
#143