mudcat.org: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: history of USA Presidential elections...

Riginslinger 10 Sep 07 - 05:46 PM
Donuel 10 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM
Riginslinger 09 Sep 07 - 10:59 PM
Bobert 09 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM
Riginslinger 09 Sep 07 - 12:01 AM
Bobert 08 Sep 07 - 10:26 AM
Riginslinger 07 Sep 07 - 10:45 PM
Ron Davies 07 Sep 07 - 10:17 PM
Bobert 07 Sep 07 - 09:51 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 10:29 PM
Riginslinger 06 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM
Ron Davies 06 Sep 07 - 03:27 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM
Ron Davies 05 Sep 07 - 10:32 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM
Riginslinger 05 Sep 07 - 06:51 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 06:23 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 05:17 PM
GUEST,Neil 05 Sep 07 - 11:57 AM
Bobert 05 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM
John on the Sunset Coast 04 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM
Ron Davies 04 Sep 07 - 10:41 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM
Bobert 04 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM
Riginslinger 04 Sep 07 - 04:02 PM
GUEST,Neil 04 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM
Bobert 04 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM
Little Hawk 04 Sep 07 - 09:27 AM
Riginslinger 04 Sep 07 - 12:13 AM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 10:13 PM
Riginslinger 03 Sep 07 - 10:10 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM
Bobert 03 Sep 07 - 05:23 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 03:37 PM
GUEST,Pete Peterson 03 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM
Little Hawk 03 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM
Bobert 03 Sep 07 - 08:10 AM
Ron Davies 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:46 PM

I give up. Which one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM

Guess which 19th century President that Barbara Bush is related to...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:59 PM

Yes, it does that too. One has to wonder why people tolerate it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM

Not only that, Rigs, it robs the US treasury...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:01 AM

Yes it is. If anything makes my blood boil it's somebody like George W. Bush, who's never worked a day in his life, telling the public that he's saving them money by suspending Davis Bacon, or encouraging people to hire folks under the table so they don't have access to accident insurance, unemployment, and etc.

                Why is that a good thing for the public?

                I'm the last guy on the planet to encourage illegal immigration, mostly for environmental reasons, but if somebody is working for wages, they deserve to be paid a fair wage, and the deserve the same benefits everybody else gets.

               This paying people under the table thing really is taking us back to slavery.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:26 AM

George Bush and Co. hate the Davis-Bacon act anyway, Rigs, and have been lookin' for a long way to suspend it... The problem I have with that is that my tax dollars are going to contractors, who in essence, have been exempted from following the law in regards to paying taxes and providing workman's comp on the folks they hire... In other words, Bush is saying, "It's okay... Just pay 'um under the table"... Ain't that like tax cheating???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:45 PM

So now we have illegal aliens re-building New Orleans for slave-wage prices. Maybe the reason so many of the former residents aren't coming back is because the wages are so low.

                   When the rebuilding first got started, George W. Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon wage requirements. He later rescined that, but the damage had been done. The locals who would have done the work had gone on to look for liveable wages, and companies had time to regroup so they could hire labor through brokers and bypass the law.

                   So it looks to me like slavery is alive and well along the gulf coast, and the people who have paid the highest price are the same folks who were wiped out in the first place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:17 PM

Bobert--

Sorry, I respect your views, your experience, and your musicianship a lot--I think you know that.

But if we're discussing history--and trying to project into the future at a juncture in history-- all we have to go on is the historical facts up to that time.

And the facts, as far as I know, are all on the pro-slavery side--- slavery in 1861 showed absolutely no signs of dying out in the South. In fact, the slavocrats were just fine with the system they had devised--and had plans to expand it.

As I've said before, I'm very willing to learn new facts--so if you have them, please share--especially if, for instance, they show a hitherto-unknown--at least I don't know about it---strong abolition movement in the South, for instance, before 1861.

We're all always learning--and I certainly don't claim to be the ultimate authority on anything. But facts are needed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:51 PM

When money is concerned, nuthin' is easy...

I kinda see where the "Union", as in the United Sates Governemnt would have had to step in with subsudies to farmers in the South, yes, even if "the South" was the CSA... Kinda like foriegn aid to a country that we don't agree with... There's no shortage of precidence here....

But as for "slaves today"??? Yes, it is very much a stretch for most people unless one has spent time in the Delta of Mississippi... No, not in the big towns like Clarksdale but in the rural areas...

I would love for "60 Minutes" to go there... People would first be amazed and then...

...ashamed....

Don't believe me... Go over to Tweedsblues.net and check out the "Como Chronicles" about me and Tweed going back into these areas... There's even a piccure of me playin' music on a porch way back in the country with no running water or electricity...

When white folks with computers in front of them even try to get there it's probably just about impossible to get there from their comforts... I have been there... The life for many folks haven't changed much since before the War Between the States...

This is the real deal... Go to Tweeds and see for yourself if you think I'm blowin' some kinda bull here... I have been there... Tween has been there... We have seen it... And this is some 50 years after the supposed death of Jim Crow...

Jim Crow was an angry reaction to the results of the War Between the States... It didn't have to happen that way... Black folks took the brunt of angry white Soiutherners... This ain't even debatable... Ji Crow was as bad as slavery and if you were a black person strung up because soemone ***said*** you ***looked*** at a white woman then it was worse as worse can be...

Yeha, Ron, you can rague that their is no evidence that slavery was on the way out but, hey, how about ***you*** provin' it wasn't???

See, you are fallin' back on the same ol' "Dickey:prove-it"...

Shame on you... You are are a better debater...

LH and I have offerd an alternative course of history here... Can you show us where we are wrong???

I mean no disrespect here but it's time to either back away or "prove" that the War Between the States" was the only way that slavery was goin' to end...

In a way, this thread has become kinda a microcosm of what might have beeen occuring in 1860??? I won't do any testimonials about how I undertand Southern thinking tho I have lived most of my life in the South but I do have some perspective here...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 10:29 PM

Slaves today is a bit much, as I think you know, Bobert. But slaves til the end of the 19th century--and maybe beyond--is not stretching it. Slavery was just too comfortable for the men at the top of the system that they would want to change it. If anything, there might well at some point have been--extremely bloody--slave revolts. Nat Turner writ large--and that was what the slaveowners lived in dread of--and always had wherever the slave population had started to exceed the white.    The example they saw was Haiti.

Slavery was not going to go peaceably. I've seen no evidence--from anybody--that it would.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM

For a discussion on Presidential elections, it seems like the 1860 election has dominated the space. That might be because that's when the Republicans and the Democrats set up their duo-aucracy, and after the war, we had one party rule.
             There's not much sense in discussing anything after that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM

So, Ron, would you argue that had Lincoln stepped back from the war and allowed the CSA to opt out of the Union that the CSA would still be using slaves today???

I mean, you can read all the books in the world about what either actually happened or people "think" actually happened but they can never say "proof positive" what would have or not happened "if" event's had taken a different direction...

Yeah, "what if" the War Between the States hadn't occured???

This is also a part of studying history... As you well know there are "Civil War" round-tables all over the country where folks do just that... If there wasn't the "what if's" histroy would not only be less fun but also less educational... Many folks, including Voltaire, have noted that those who don't know history tend to repeat it...

Now we can drift this thing into oblivion...

Right now, I've got a meeting to attend...

So have at it...

Maybe LH will debate you fir a while but I gotta go...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

"arrangements"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM

Bobert--

1) Any evidence of abolitionism in the South before 1861? From what I read, any abolitionist voices in the South were stifled. John Brown obviously does not fit as a Southern abolitionist--and look at the support he received in the South--even from slaves--who knew a losing campaign when they saw it.   Also, for instance, as I recall, the abolitionist brother of the writer of Jingle Bells (of all things), as a Unitarian preacher in Savannah, was forced out. Haven't read of any prominent Southern abolitionists who weren't suppressed. Do you have info on this--I'd be honestly fascinated to learn about them? You can learn a lot on the 'Cat.

2) What about the questions of the fugitive slave laws? Any comparable situation after 1865? And again, under slavery, families were often split up--as I pointed out, not always due to the whim of the owner--sometimes economic pressure on him. But the result is the same. Back in Washington's day, an estate of a heavily indebted slaveowner was broken up--including a sale of slaves "from 14 or 15 down to the ages of two or three years"--the author attributes Washington's gradual turning against slavery partly to this incident. I suspect it happened later also. After 1865, if a family was broken up, it wasn't because the members were sold off.

3) Still absolutely no evidence to back up an assertion that slavery was on its way out in 1861.   On the contrary, as others have already pointed out, there were Southern plans to further expand it--including Cuba, Haiti etc. And as I have indicated, many whites for quite a while would have been fine with having blacks pick their cotton--as slaves--possibly into the 20th century. And the North was also involved--through cotton markets, banking arrangments, etc.

And as to why I still discuss it--face it, slavery is an emotional issue.   Not, in my opinion, good for flippant and sometimes callous remarks (not aimed at you, obviously). Talking about elections, fine.

Also, I'm reading several books about slavery in the early days of the US--and before. A lot of the same arguments hold--or are even stronger. Obviously I come at from a different perspective--certainly not the war-gaming perspective. I find history endlessly fascinating without any what-ifs. And if people want to speculate, it seems reasonable they should provide some facts to back up their projections. Facts which so far are missing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

Ummmmm, Ron, if you have a problem with the thread drift then quit debating your positions... All that does is insure the drift

Now, a blanket statement that former slaves were better off "free" after 1865 isn't completely true either... While slavery was a repulsive system slaves were treated as assets... Many former slaves, especially after 1876, were treated worse as free than they had ever been treated as assests... Most, yes, were better off but to say they were all better off is a groos misrepresentation...

As for evidence??? That seems be to your red herring position... Of course it can't be proved inspite of the abolitionist's movement of the '50's, John Brown's raid, etc... But again, this argument fits neatly with demanding that Saddam didn'ty have WND's... It is a speculative position which can be turned around... I could ask you to prove that slavery wouldn't have evoloved out...

Now, I believe that we are just restating our repective opionions here... Our posiitions aren't revealing anything new to the discussion of the elections and unless yet another rebuttal is lodged, I'd be more than happy to let the drift die out and the election discussion continue...

I have mentioned the 1828 election as well as the 1968 election as ones that have some juiceiness to them...

Peace

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:27 PM

Bobert--


Nobody says that blacks after 1865 had it easy. On the contrary.

However:

1) It is still better than under slavery--partly for the reasons I cited. The progress, as I said was moving from slavery to not being slaves. And it seemed that you and LH were denying that life after 1865 was any better for blacks.

2) Nobody has provided any evidence that slavery--in 1861--was on the way out. The evidence is all on the other side.


Where the thread has gone off the track is getting into this question at all--the thread topic is "history of USA presidential elections...".   And I did not drag it off topic. It was off topic before I even posted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM

Being a bluesman has brought me in direct contact with many realy old black people in the South...

A couple years ago I spent a day at the home of Sam Carr who has played with the likes of Muddy Waters as well as John Lee Hooker... The converstaion was fascinating as he told stories about the way things "used to be" in Mississippi and we're not even talking 20's here but the 40's and 50's... Sam lives in the Delta region of Mississipi not too far off "Highway 61" where the popylation even today is almost exclusively black with the exception of the "plantation" owners... The popultaion ofthe Delta hasn't much changed since the War Between the States and life hasn't either...

So Sam was talkin' about working on the plantation 6 days a week for less than $5 a day in the 40's as a young man... Then he worked on Saturday night at the "juke joint" as a "doorman"... Now the "doorman" ain't the best job 'cause he's got to make sure the joint didn't get robbed and that nobody got killed and the "doorman" always had a pistol to aid in those goals... Problem was that things didn't always turn out right and occasionally someone would be shot and killed and the sherriff would come and take the killer off to jail but come Monday mornin' the "plantation owner" would come and collect his "nigger" 'cause he needed him back in the fields or on the tractor...

Now I ain't saying that slavery was good 'cause it wasn't but it hasn't been all that long ago where defacto slavery existed for millions of black people in the South... I mean, in our life time... Might of fact, if one travels doen Highway 61 between West Memphis, Arkansa to Clarksdale, Mississippi and ventures back off the main road one will see black folks still living very much the way they would have in the 1850's with no electricity, running water, cars or much more than shacks... Not even shotgun shacks but just shacks... I have been there, played music there so it is something that I have some firsthand knowledge of...

Yes, this thread has veered off... But I don't think "badly"... This subject seems to be one that makes white people very uncomfortable because they fully understand their part in the institution of slavery and don't really want to be bothered with taking a good hard look at it because it might mean that they would have to collectively make a greater effore to "repair" as in making "repair"ations for what it has done to black people...

I know your heart, Ron, and you are a compassionate person but I also know what I know and have seen and understand from my readings of history and I'm not afraid to have this discussion... Bill Clinton tried tio get a coverstaion going that would have ended up in some of thease murkier corners of American history but was stopped cold because the sanitized version of our history is so much easier to digest...

So, yeah, the thread has veered and perhaps for the good...

Peace,

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:32 PM

LH, Bobert--

You are excellent debaters. I notice you phrased it "from Emancipation to the 1920's" there was virtually no progress for blacks. Ah, but that's not the point. The progress was in going from slavery to not being slaves. I would guess very few former slaves, to say the least, would have been eager to exchange the conditions in Reconstruction and after for slavery. But that is what you are asserting, if you are saying that freedom meant nothing or was even a step backwards--to former slaves.

If you had been a slave at the time, I suspect you would think differently. Just being able to move legally--without a law used to track you down, bring you back, and punish you would be worth quite a bit. As would not having your family split up by the whim of-- or economic pressure on-- your owner. I don't see why you don't realize that. Washington tried hard not to split up slave families. Jefferson--not so much. And on cotton and rice plantations it's obvious what the attitude would be.

Obviously we'll never know what would have happened if the Civil War had not resulted in the end of black slavery in the US. But consider that as late as the 1930's white men were desperate to avoid picking cotton. Johnny Cash, Bob Wills, and LBJ all picked cotton---and made damn sure they got tickets out of that kind of future.

If you don't think that as late as the 1930's whites would have been perfectly fine with having blacks pick their cotton--as slaves--you're deluding yourselves. If you don't think there is a difference between sharecropping and slavery, again you're deluding yourselves.

You may think this is an "emotional response" to the issue. So be it. But I believe it verges on the obscene to have a bunch of white males stroking their beards and agreeing, yes, in our considered opinion, emancipation was no progress for slaves. Bobert, I'm surprised at you for buying this line. LH--not so surprising--it may be just an intellectual exercise for him.

The thread started off fine--as a worthwhile source of information. But it's veered off course badly---and I wasn't the one who pulled it off course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 08:28 PM

Exactly...

I believe that the 3 most influential men of the 60's who represented the "movement" were all killed by folks whoes motives were very suspect: Malcom X, Dr, King and Bobby Kennedy...

... and I think they were killed by folks who were set up by the CIA who was taking it's orders from Boss Hog hisself... I mean, how else could these assasinations happen by folks who really didn't have much a bone to pick with these folks???

I understand John Hinkley... Well, not really... But at l;east he was a certified nutball who thought he was shooting Reagan for a movie star...

But these other assasins??? No logic other than they were well paid or...

...something...


I don't even put JFK assasination intio the mix but maybe I should... He just never seemed like as big a threat to Boss Hog and the corporate thugs as the other three... But maybe I should which would make 4 assasination by folks with no apparent motives...

Hey, not that I am advocating assaination as a way to control one's government but seein' as we have speculated on post War Between the States scenerios, hey...

What if the progressives had pulled a page out of the right wingers play book during Reagan's administration. or even the current administration, I wonder who would have been assainiated and how that might change the direction of the country...

The 60's certainly posed a threat to the military/industrial complex and it "was handled"...

What about the converse???

Like I said, I am not advocating anything here... I do not believe that violence solves anything even though it stopped a "movement" in it's tracks...

Just food for thought???

Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle???

Bush/Rove/Rice???

Reagan/Richardson/Kirkpatrick???

The combinations are endless...

Like I said, just food for thought when we discuss events that could have changed history...

(Now please don't bust down my door, Micheal Chertoff... This is a discussion... Not a suggestion...)

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 06:51 PM

Everybody speculates on the JFK assassination, but not nearly as much ink is spent on the RFK assassination. That Sir-Han Sir-Han guy must have been working for somebody.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 06:23 PM

Actually, seein' as we ahve kinda locked onto slavery and Jim Crow, I'd point out that the 1876 Hayes Tilden election was in many ways similar to the 2000 Bush-Gore debacle... Dems not wanting to certify Repub victiries and vices versa.. But unlike the Bush-Gore elction in the end everyone got something... A New York Repub, with fewer popultar votesa nd behaps even fewer "earned" electorial votes, got the presidency and Jim Crow got the Union outta his hair...

All of this make me wonder if the 2000 election wasn't the largest presidential debacle in our history since all the Dems got was a poke in the eye and nuthin' more...

As fir some other elctions that I find interesting the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson musta had the "beltway insiders" (haha) a little nervous...

And of course the 1948 Truman-Dewey with some newspapers printing that Dewey had won...

And then there's the most bizarre elexction of my life time, other than 2000, in 1968 when Bobby Kennedy, sho in my opinion would have beaten anywon out there being gunned down by a guy who had no apparent motive???? yeah, a big hmmmmmmmm???? And then LBJ rollin' HHH under the bus less than a month before the election by doing what HHH said he was going to do in stopping the bombing in SE Asia allowing Nisxo with his "secret plan" to squeek in...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:17 PM

Hard to speculate, Neil...

Again, it seems that what LH and I are both suggesting is that the War Between the States wasn't the only "first step" alternative...

Ron would have us prove that slavery would have ended thru evolution which of course neither of us can ***prove***... But we do have to look at the strong abolitionist movement on late late '50's, the militancy of John Brown and the likes and I think it is fair to speculate that slavery was not going to be around forever...

Also, there is something that we haven't talked about and that is the extreme hatred held by Southerns after the war toward not only the north but toward black folks... The war intensified those feelings of hatred... This is why it took another hundred years to finally wrestle Jim Crow down and it was done with the federal troops having to go back into the South to allow black kids to attend a white school...

And even tho there are many Southerners today who have gotten over the War there are way too many who continue to pass this hatred down to thei kids...

My thinking is that had slavery been evolved *out* and white Southerners been participants in the evolution then we wouldn't have so much pent-up Southern hatred today...

Can I prove that??? No... But I have lived in the South most of my life and it is what I feel...

Bobert~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:57 AM

Little Hawk wanted to see comparative figures on the US population for the same period. I will cede that these numbers will show a decrease in the % of slaves to the general poulation from 18% in 1820 (peak) to 17% in 1840 to 14% in 1860. Yhis would seem to suggest a net decline in slave population especially in the 20 year immediately preceding the Civil War. But as bobert says, numbers can be misleading. That 20 year period saw the first massive immigration movement from Europe (the Irish Potato Famine) and the vast majority of these immigrants settled in the industrialized cities in the North.
In the slaveholding states you do not see a net decrease in slave population.In South Carolina , for example, there was a net increase from 56% in 1840 to 59% in 1860, due largely to the labor intense rice growing industry. Is it any wonder that SC was the most vocal of all the pro-slavery forces and the first state to secede from the Union.
    Back in 1787 slavery was such a hot-buuton issue that the only way to get the US Constitution ironed out and ratified by all states was by way of a tacit agreement on all sides to not even discuss it. The word "slave" is not to be found in the entire document. The unspoken gist of this "gentlemens'" agreement was that northerners wouldn't push for the ending of slavery by legislations and the southerners would gradually phase it out. Fifty years later, the real number of slaves and the net % of slaves in the US population were at an all time high. It is at this point that the Abolitionist movement began. (There had been voices, mostly Quaker, speeking against slavery clear back to the early 1700's, but no large scale national
Abolition movement until the 1830's.)
   Bobert says that "these people were no better off from the Emancipation right up until the 20's when their grandkids had some opportunities...". This isn't entirely true. Emancipation did come at the beginning of the opening of the West (the plight of its original inhabitants could be subject of another thread). At least 1/3 of all cowboys were black (another 1/3 was Mexican. Funny how you never see this in the movies.), living and working under the same conditions as their white counterparts. Not the most comfortable life, but surely, better than that of a 7 year old white kid working 72 hours a week in some New England textile mill or an Irshman doing deep pit mining in Pennsylvania. But, nevertheless, I will concede that sharecropping and Jim Crow were no great improvement over slavery, however emancipation was only the first step in the equal integration of black people into American society which is still an ongoing struggle. Every process begins with a first step. How many opportunities would have opened up for the grandchildren of 1860's slaves if those grandchildren were themselves, still slaves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM

Ron,

Asking us to "prove" that slavery would have ended without the war is like askling Saddam to *prove* he didn't have WMD's...

It is not a logical question or argument...

And for the record... Neither slavery or Jim Crow were "fine" with me... They weren't that much different and were each indefensable and repulsive...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM

Gee, I'm sorry to have just seen this discussion. As Little Hawk says, it is fun to speculate on alternate histories and what ifs.

I am not so sure that the union could have remained together peaceably short of maintaining slavery, or even allowing it to expand. Whenever new states were being considered, the South fought tooth and nail to allow them, or even require them, to allow slavery, hence the Missouri Compromise and other acts.

Remember, slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of the state's representation in the House of Representatives, but the slaves had no say themselves. That was a powerful political tool for the slave-holding states. If new states were not slave states, this would dilute southern states' power in the house.

By the election of 1860, it was pretty well known that a Republican/Lincoln victory would cause a rupture of the country; South Carolina seceded, attacking Fort Sumter before Lincoln's oath of office was barely out of his mouth.

I suppose Lincoln could have allowed the secession states to leave with his blessing, but that was probably not ever a starter. Countries don't just let themselves be nibbled out of business. (Please don't bring up the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc break-up; those countries were held by force in Russia.)

How much longer might slavery have continued in the south? Who knows. Might the slaves have successfully revolted as in Haiti and elsewhere? I don't know. But clearly it would have gone on for decades, as the slave owners were in no hurry to end that vile institution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM

Oops. Not Don. Ron! I keep having this problem...I think that Don Davies and Ron Firth are....no, wait...it's...Don Ravies and Fon...

Oh, hell.

How about we get you two to switch names every alternate week?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM

Who said slavery was "just fine"? Please don't put ridiculous assertions in the mouths of other people that you wish they would make just so they could be totally wrongheaded for your convenience. ;-) It's an illegitimate arguing technique.

I am saying only one thing: it would have been far better to end slavery through a gradual process of negotiation over a decade...or two...or three...than by splitting a country in two, killing 500,000 people in a terrible five-year war, and ruining the lives of millions more. That the country was split in two was the fault of extremists and zealots on both sides of the line, and the southern ones were clearly more at fault, but they were certainly not alone in that error.

Tell me I'm evil for saying that, Don. ;-) Go ahead. Twist it around somehow to prove that I'm an apologist for slavery or some stupid, grotesque thing that you wish to concoct to fire the rhetoric of your argument. I'm sure you can find a way to do that somehow.

Do you think I really care whether or not I can convince you of something? I don't. What difference could it possibly make? I'm not in competition with you for moral or intellectual supremacy here. I assume no such thing. There is no prize to be won. I don't give a damn, really, if we see it differently. It's okay. The only reason I am on this thread at all is that I am just talking about something I find interesting...US history. Quit trying to establish some kind of moral victory over me and Bobert here, and it would further the discussion greatly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:41 PM

LH, Bobert--

So slavery was just fine? The South tried to use this "wage slave" excuse--that actually many Northern workers had it worse than slaves--quite a bit leading up to the Civil War. It has just as much validity as another of their favorite themes--that slavery was Biblically ordained.

Your argument that the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction South was just as bad-or worse-- than slavery--will not hold water. I notice you have provided no facts to back up your assertions.

And as several posters have already pointed out, somebody who alleges that slavery was "on the way out" in 1861 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pre-war Southern economy. Slaves provided a larger portion of the wealth of Southern plantation owners even than land. Slaves were part--a large part--of bequests. A "likely looking wench" was often the most valuable slave--since the owner planned on her offspring. Not on slavery withering away. As you're probably aware, the North was also involved in the Southern slave-based economy--through cotton markets etc.

I'm aware that during the Civil War when poor white Southerners were asked why they were fighting, the answer could be "Cause you're down here." But many had hopes for slaves themselves--since that was seen as the ticket out of economic distress--and would establish their superiority.

And the trend in slaves is clearly reflected in the figures Neil cites. Just saying the numbers don't reflect everything does not refute them. The facts are against you.

And for the person at the top--the white male plantation owner--the system worked great. He, and the hierarchy he was part of--which ruled the South-- saw no reason to change a thing.

I'm reading Rough Crossings now--obviously about an earlier period--the Revolution. But it's striking how many sacrifices and dangers slaves were willing to endure to escape slavery. And this was before King Cotton.


If you really think the abolitionist movement was gaining traction in the 1850's in the South, let's have some actual evidence.

It would also be interesting to have Azizi's perspective on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM

Yeah, they were "free" to live in a shotgun shack, work for a starvation wage for the White "massa" up on the hill in the big mansion, and keep their mouths shut. They were free to get lynched by the Klan if they got the least bit uppity or looked at somebody instead of keepin' their eyes down. They were free to get strung up by a local mob on suspicion, to hell with evidence, if someone was needed to blame for something...

Put your eyes in your pocket. Put your nose on the ground. Pick that cotton. Tote that bale. Never forget that you are not White, and you are living in a White man's world. Never forget that you are not equal to a white man, not even close, and you never will be.

That was what you got after 1865 if you were a black person living in the South, and what you got in the North wasn't usually all that great either.

You know, you can say someone's "free" all you want in some fancy speech or on some fancy document, but until you make it economically and socially possible for him to really BE free in the sense of what freedom truly is, until he can actualize his "freedom" like anyone else can, you ain't said much.

Freedom means having not only the technical legal "right" to do what you wish to in life, it means also having the actual power to do it in the context of the rest of society. Black people did not have that power. That's why they had to fight for it all over again a century later.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM

Oh, how those numbers can be so misleading...

First of all the abolitionist movement was gaining traction in the latre 50's... Movement's take time... Numbers don't tell the entire story...

And the numbers that aren't mentioned is the number of black people after the Emancipation who were doing absolutely the same type and amount of work for lousy wages... The Jim Crow days were no picnic for former slaves... In essence, the Emancipation said this "You're free.... you ain't got nuthin'... We ain'tonna give you nuthin... But yer free..."

Free exactly to do what??? Hey, this wasn't the 20's when manufacturing jobs became available for blacks up north... No, these folks were no better off from the Emancipation right up until the 20's when their grandkids had some opportunities...

Let's keep this in some perspective here...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

Let's see some comparative figures for general population growth in the USA over the same period, and see how it lines up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:02 PM

Almost as bad as illegal aliens!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM

From the US Census: Number of slaves by year
    1790 - 697,681
    1800 - 893,602
    1810 - 1,191,362
    1820 - 1,538,022
    1830 - 2,009,043
    1840 - 2,487,355
    1850 - 3,204,313
    1860 - 3,953,760
    1870 - 0
tell me again about how slavery was "on its way out" in 1860.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM

Well, if I'm goin' try to end up on the "great presidents" list I don't hire Mac to run my war... Lioncoln did and Mac stayed to long before being replaced... Heck, another couple battles with Mac callin' the shots and the CSA mighta won...

Yeah, once you commit to a war, which Lincoln should have not done, you don't want a lose or a draw... So where was Lincokln's greatness again???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:27 AM

Well, they should have done just that, as a matter of fact. There were a number of things that could have been done if wiser heads had prevailed. For instance, the North should not have attempted to maintain active forts in Southern harbors, such as Fort Sumter. It wasn't a reasonable thing to do, and it could only lead to shooting at some point, and that would start off the war. They should have evacuated the Union forts that were in harbors of areas that seceded from the Union.

But they were too proud to do that.

The Southern states should not have seceded in the first place. But they were too proud not to.

The whole damn thing was idiotic, frankly, and they both paid a terrible price for it, didn't they?

I can understand exactly how McClellan felt if he felt as you suggest. It was a ludicrous waste of human lives to fight that war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:13 AM

Yeah, but I really think that was what McClellan was thinking. I suspect that he thought if he just kept moving his troops around and put off engaging the enemy--people who I really don't think he saw as enemies at all--in the end, somebody would come up with a political solution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:13 PM

He was quite right about that. They would have been better off talking to each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:10 PM

"McClellon was his guy and McClellon was a tad slow on the trigger finger..."


                  I really think McClellan didn't feel like Americans ought to be shooting at each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM

"Blacks did the same kinda work for the same people... The only difference was they were paid terrible wages, loaned money by their bosses to get by, and in essence lived as slaves well into 20th century..."

Right on, Bobert. That is the sad truth of what really happened to Black people after the war, Emancipation Proclamation or no Emancipation Proclamation. That's the part that doesn't get acknowledged, and it's why such a hard struggle had to be fought in our time, in the 50's and 60's for civil rights, and why some good people died in the process.

The War Between the States did not really do much to change the miserably awful conditions Blacks were suffering under, it simply crushed the independent aspirations of the South, wrecked their society, and opened the door for northern industrialists and carpetbaggers to pillage and profit.

I don't call that a great accomplishment, I call it a national tragedy on a gigantic scale.

*****

McClellan was an odd case. He was probably unequalled in his talent for drilling and training a spit and polish army. He was tremendously popular with the rank and file of his soldiers...partly because he tried to avoid exposing them to heavy losses in battle. In fact, "Little Mac" was so popular with the Army of the Potomac that he probably could have launched a coup and taken over the government, had he chosen to. They liked him way better than they did Lincoln.

On the other hand, he was a VERY ineffective battle commander, due to his hesitation to commit, his reluctance to take any risks, his inability to capitalize on a developing situation, his positive gift for siezing a draw out of the jaws of a victory. ;-) He badly mishandled the Peninsular Campaign, due to his timidity and his gross overestimation of the size of the Southern forces. He could have crushed Lee's army at Antietam, but he let Lee fight to a ragged draw and then he let Lee's army escape.

Incredible, really! Lincoln must have been almost beside himself with frustration.

And Lee must have figured God was surely on his side... ;-) But they all figured that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

OK, LH and Bobert, you're on.

Bobert--Lincoln did not stay with McClellan, as you know. In fact, as many have pointed out, he went through several until he decided to stay with Grant.

LH--let's have some specifics on what Lincoln did wrong to cause the Civil War. Do you think he should have let the South secede? Otherwise pure speculation comes close to a waste of time--I wouldn't think you have that much to waste. I sure don't--but I believe in facts.

As you guys are aware, I'm sure, you're not the only enthusiastic amateur historians on the 'Cat. I think there are a fair number of us.

I have no objection to iconoclasm--but let's have some facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:23 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with what LH has just said... Given the some 80 more years of Jim Crow rule in the South another 20 or even 30 years of "slavery". IMO, would have been a hundred times better than the War Between the States (I'm no longer going to use the term "civil war" 'cause it wasn't...)

Actually things didn't much change in the South during the Jim Crow years... Blacks did the same kinda work for the same people... The only difference was they were paid terrible wages, loaned money by their bosses to get by, and in essence lived as slaves well into 20th century...

Might of fact, I believe that the US would be a lot further down the road in regards to "civil rights" and national harmony had the War Between the States had never occured, even if it meant slavery going out of style thru evolution...

As fir Lincoln being a great military/war president, I really don;t see that... McClellon was his guy and McClellon was a tad slow on the trigger finger and got a bunch of Union troops messed up from his timidity... Great war presidents pick great generals... Lincoln didn't start out too well...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM

My point to the "slavery was on its way out" was that the North and South stumbled needlessly into a war in the 1860's that they should never have fought. They did so because of their pride and intransigence. In so doing they created havoc and disaster beyond their wildest imaginations, and put deep wounds in the country that still have not fully healed.

I think it would have been far better if cooler heads had prevailed and they had not fought that war. It would have been better if the Southern states had not seceded, but had continued to negotiate within the Union.

There were hotheads on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, they mutually set their country on the road to disaster, and I believe that in doing so they made a terrible error. Of those hotheads, I would say that the ones in the South made the more grievous errors. They were extremely unrealistic to imagine that the North would tolerate secession, and they were even more unrealistic to imagine that they could win the war which would inevitably follow.

Do I think that a decade or two more of slavery in the South would have been preferable to tearing the country in two, wrecking half of it for at least a generation, and killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Yeah, sorry...but I do think that would have been preferable, frankly. I think it's better to open a stubborn jar of pickles slowly than to smash it apart with a sledgehammer.

And I have just as low an opinion of slavery as you do, Ron. (I HAVE my "liberal" credentials. I believe in racial equality and I always have.) But.......I have an even lower opinion of huge and unnecessary wars...because they cause human suffering on a far vaster scale.

That was my point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

Ron, I have always enjoyed speculating about possible alternative outcomes in history. I find them very interesting, almost as interesting as history itself. This may come from a life of playing historical wargames...and in those a big part of the appeal is seeing if you can change history.

My opinion about Mr Lincoln is simply my opinion, and it differs from your own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

Also, if somebody states that slavery "was on the way out", it's a reasonable guess that there is a point to that statement. If so, what is it? Without a point, it sounds like a meaningless statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM

Lincoln a "poor president in a general political sense". Evidence please--with specifics.   As opposed to speculation as to how things could have been different. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:37 PM

Yes, that's true, Pete...going by what they knew at the time there would have been very few, if any among them, who had an expectation that slavery would be rendered economically unviable not too far in the future. It's just like there would have been very few among us in 1984 who thought the Soviet Union would collapse. People don't generally see what's coming, they live in the consciousness of what they are accumstomed to.

So as you say, perhaps Lincoln did do his best in a bad situation.

As for Grant.... The Vicksburg campaign was a tough one. Grant was not the type to quit, and that's what made him so valuable for the North. He just kept grinding on. Given his great superiority in manpower and munitions, that was what was needed to win....simply a man who wouldn't quit when the going got tough. And it sure got tough!

Sherman and Sheridan were also extremely effective commanders with similar tenacity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

The problem is that we're looking at the 1860 election, and Lincoln as a war leader, from the persepctive of 2007, not what they knew at the time. Between 1840 and 1853 the United States grew in size tremendously-- from Mexico to the south and west, and "from" Britain to the north. After 1867 the United Staes didn't acquire any more territory. (Seward's Folly, remember?) The South expected to acquire a whole lot more territory in the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico, much of which would be good land for slavery. If slavery was on the way out in 1860, you could not find any evidence for this in the writings of Toombs, Rhett and Yancey, to name some prominent Southerners who wrote on the subject. Lincoln took office already faced with secession-- not as a result of his policies toward slavery as such, but his policy on whether a territory could restrict slavery before becoming a state. He believed in the Union-- and believed that since the Union existed, that he had no power to interfere with slavery where it existed. To me, he did his best in a bad situation. I admire him greatly, if you can't tell.
And the quote about Grant as I remember it is "I can't spare the man. He fights." (this at a time when Grant had tried seven times to caputre Vicksburg and failed each time)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM

I've heard that highly emotional and reactive response on the slavery issue before, Ron, if anyone dares state that it was on the way out, but I'm not going to fight with you about it, because I was implying absolutely no endorsement of slavery in what I said, I was just making a neutral observation about what I feel was the probability of its survival for much longer as a viable institution in that era... As such, I'm merely speculating. I am not threatening the health and happiness of any Black people, then or now, in so doing. What's done is done. You had your Civil War and killed your 500,000 (or thereabouts). What I say now won't change it.

I think Lincoln was quite a good war leader, but a poor president in a more general political sense. He had the resolve and practicality to lead effectively as a war leader. He also had a political attitude which I think made that war inevitable.

Of course, you could argue that it was inevitable regardless...and you might be right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:10 AM

Yeah, 20/20 hindsight tells us that the CSA might have been able to take Washington on the heels of the 1st Battle of Bull Run...

I think the shock value of the battle on both sides kinda have both sides second guessing...

It sho nuff had all them socialites who had brought their picnic blankets in their carriages to observe the festivities in shock...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: history of USA Presidential elections...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 AM

"amazing amount"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 19 September 7:00 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.