It's one of those things that we find hard to believe ever existed. But it was actually normal in many parts of the world at that time.
OT: Just How Laughable Has ESPN Become
- Thread starter fedman
- Start date
The North's views on slavery were fractured. Certainly, the abolitionists were passionately against the practice and certainly the copperheads only wanted to avoid the war. Then you have the Free Soil Party and the Republican base. However, the South was committed to slavery as an indispensable element of their life.
Last edited:
I was watching a little bit of nfl preseason game on NBC. I think Al Michaels said this women is the first openly gay coach. Oh Boy. some PC hire is gay. Did we need to know that? We do not say coach such and such is openly heterosexual. This PC left wing culture that dominates is going to ruin sports.
It wouldn't be news if a coach were heterosexual. Citing a coach as being gay is news because such people have long been targets of discrimination. It's a gauge of progress and acceptance, which can be considered a good thing..
Someone's personal life should stay and remain private
Our present attitudes are the result of technological and economic advance. (It's no coincidence that the Industrial Revolution and abolition movement developed around the same time.) That, combined with the revelations from the Holocaust.
That's true, but states' rights was also an issue, as evidenced by the Nullification Crisis
That may be true, but the northern factories were a major purchaser of southern cotton. Plus, many southern planters sold their cotton to northern merchants, who in turn sold it to local factories, English buyers, etc. That arrangement is one factor in shaping southerns' economic outlook. The southern planters shipped the cotton to the northern merchants, who in turn warehoused the cotton and sold it at a later time. The planters didn't get paid on the spot. They weren't paid until the the cotton actually sold. They obviously have to live off something in the interim, so they would borrow against their future payout. The merchant would keep a running tab of what was owed vs. what was sold. This would also mean that a planter would be beholden to the merchant for sometime, as the balance usually wasn't level. What the south really needed was a good economist to come straighten out the economic situation.
Last edited:
Nope, but I'd imagine if the cheerleader had done the splits, that would have been a sticking point, so to speak.
Wow, three responses. We should call you tripledecktiger.
Response to #1: No doubt, technological breakthroughs reduce to the demand on human labor and exploitation. I'd also like to believe that morality was a driving force.
Response to #2: States rights was translated into an agrarian economy which depended on slavery. Basically, all other issue were ancillary to that.
Response to #3: To whatever extent the North relied on cotton, its decision to fight the good fight against slavery made it more noble, as it was willing to sacrifice a benefit for the cause.
Morality wasn't really an initial driving force. What I mean is, the morality didn't develop until a framework for it to develop within was in place.
I'm not arguing that slavery wasn't the driving issue. What I am saying is that other issues (call them "states' rights" or whatever) were of more significance than you and most people acknowledge. That's why I mentioned the Nullification Crisis. If you aren't familiar, this happened in 1832/33. Congress has passed several tariffs on imported goods. South Carolina claimed the tariffs were unlawful, and held a convention to "nullify" the tariffs. The president sent troops and naval vessels to Fort Sumter to enforce the tariffs, and the governor of South Carolina called out the state militia to oppose the federal troops. What does that sound like to you? In fact, state troops firing on federal troops at Fort Sumter is the start of the Civil War. Notice slavery wasn't an issue in the Nullification Crisis.
Now, as I said, I don't disagree that slaver was the primary issue of the Civil War. However, to ignore the impact of other issues is simply an inaccurate view of history.
That's the main point right there. Who was "more noble" isn't relevant. That's just an emotional argument.
Lol. That is gross but funny clonty !!! That's funny I don't care who you are. Well played.
somethings are best not necessary to coment on. that would show how far we came in society. I do not need to know her sexual preference or care
I think you can always apply morality in any discussion, I think that's the core of humanistic development.
Again, my argument is that slavery is the leit motif of the cause of the Civil War.
I think nobility is relevant, and it transcends mere emotional responses.
I don't understand why it's so disconcerting. You can choose to forget her being cited, but I'd venture to say some found it an interesting comment. Adam Wade, of the short lived show Musical Care, was the first black game show host. Hardly means diddly squat, but I found it interesting.
No, what that is really doing is projecting today's attitudes onto a past event. The reason is to achieve a contemporary goal, rather than understanding the past event as it actually was.
The goal of the war wasn't the abolition of slavery. It was the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said this himself. Abolition wasn't a goal until well after the war started.
It's kind of like with the Holocaust and WWII. We didn't get into the war for the noble reason of ending the Holocaust. We tacitly supported Britain and the Allies for political and economic interests, and then entered the war because Japan attacked and Germany declared war. It's a good thing we stopped the Holocaust, and it's certainly something to be proud of, but you can't romanticize it.
The reason some find it so "disconcerting" is because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a whole political movement, with legal and social consequences, that drives such citations.
No, what that is really doing is projecting today's attitudes onto a past event. The reason is to achieve a contemporary goal, rather than understanding the past event as it actually was.
The goal of the war wasn't the abolition of slavery. It was the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said this himself. Abolition wasn't a goal until well after the war started.
It's kind of like with the Holocaust and WWII. We didn't get into the war for the noble reason of ending the Holocaust. We tacitly supported Britain and the Allies for political and economic interests, and then entered the war because Japan attacked and Germany declared war. It's a good thing we stopped the Holocaust, and it's certainly something to be proud of, but you can't romanticize it.
Lincoln said a lot of quirky and seemingly contradictory things, but I believe that his ultimate goal was emancipation and I think that even trumped the idea of preserving the union, as he wouldn't have regarded the union as being worthy of preserving if it allowed slavery.
The reason some find it so "disconcerting" is because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a whole political movement, with legal and social consequences, that drives such citations.
I go by the rule of Occam's razor. The coach's status as gay was a first amidst much effort to deny rights to a group, and the achievement is noteworthy. That's why the issue was cited.
The goal of the war wasn't the abolition of slavery. It was the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said this himself. Abolition wasn't a goal until well after the war started.
It's kind of like with the Holocaust and WWII. We didn't get into the war for the noble reason of ending the Holocaust. We tacitly supported Britain and the Allies for political and economic interests, and then entered the war because Japan attacked and Germany declared war. It's a good thing we stopped the Holocaust, and it's certainly something to be proud of, but you can't romanticize it.
Lincoln said a lot of quirky and seemingly contradictory things, but I believe that his ultimate goal was emancipation and I think that even trumped the idea of preserving the union, as he wouldn't have regarded the union as being worthy of preserving if it allowed slavery.
The reason some find it so "disconcerting" is because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a whole political movement, with legal and social consequences, that drives such citations.
I go by the rule of Occam's razor. The coach's status as gay was a first amidst much effort to deny rights to a group, and the achievement is noteworthy. That's why the issue was cited.
Last edited:
That's true, but the landmark achievement of a person attaining a position in a profession where homosexuality has been so often the subject of scorn is not one of them. Let's hope we come far enough in society where acknowledging such achievements are not necessary. Given that she's the first such achievement suggests that we haven't come that far thus yet.
Lincoln said a lot of quirky and contradictory things, because he simply wasn't a true believer as you like to imagine him to be. Your idea that Lincoln would regard the union as being unworthy of preserving, due to slavery, is simply at odds with his actual beliefs and attitudes. You're romanticizing his motives.
You said this in an earlier post:
See, that's the issue right there. You perceive things based on what you want to believe. I see things based on how they actually exist. In the case of Lincoln, you are simply seeing more in him that is actually there. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic. I'm saying that to put this discussion into context.
That's again your romanticization of people's motives. It's pretty clear that the media does this to promote their agenda, not merely to educate or inform. (The whole deal with Michael Sam and ESPN being a prime example.) Using your Occum's razor principle, the much more likely scenario is this example was politically motivated. That's not to say that NBC, ESPN, etc. are "bad." It just means they fell into the trap of confusing right and wrong with their personal desires.
Nope, I think you have a wrong belief about what you think I want to believe. I've read books about Lincoln that perhaps portray what you think Lincoln was like. One was entitled "Grape Jelly," written by Jan Morris, who before her sex change was the redoubtable writer James Morris, defender of the British Empire. Ms. Morris was snarky and critical, comparing Lincoln to a slickly marketed product, akin to the packets of grape jelly she encountered at breakfast tables. She emphasized that Lincoln only did noble things when it was politically expedient and was a politician through and through. I disagree with the take based on other research of his life. As you said, maybe I'm repeating myself in certain instances, but then I don't take inventory of extemporaneous posting.
Sorry, I don't see anything insidious or promoting about citing someone who stiff armed discrimination and became the first to achieve a status in society. Do you regard Jackie Robinson's crossing of the color line to integrate baseball as an achievement romanticized by the media?
As a sidenote, I wonder what Miss Morris would think of various transgenders who preceded her in pioneering recognition and acceptance. Perhaps Rene Richards in tennis. Alas, there was no mixed singles title for him/her to pursue.
Last edited:
Only want to see facts you believe in,huh? Wearing blinders to see only what you like. But that's for another forum. I'm Irish,my ancestors were persecuted. I want justice as well as 300 other groups.
Your response alone confirms my opinion. You said you read several books that support my description of Lincoln. However, it is clear from your previous post that you don't share that view. So the fact that you simply read something contrary to your opinion doesn't address what you actually believe. Lincoln (and many other abolitionists for that matter) didn't believe in complete equality. Hell, most people didn't even believe in equality for all whites back then, let alone for blacks. Lincoln did oppose slavery. However, his intent was to phase out slavery over the course of time.
Whether you see anything wrong with it or not, there is. You mentioned "acceptance" in your last paragraph. That's the problem. You can't demand or require acceptance. You can only ask for tolerance, and that's it. When you demand acceptance, you are forcing your beliefs onto others.
To answer your last question, the short answer is yes. However, let me put that into context. In the last ~20 years, the media has placed more emphasis on Jackie Robinson's integration that it received even in the Civil Rights era, when it would have been more relevant. The reason is, the media doesn't really celebrate Jackie Robinson's achievements per se. What they want to do is associate their goals with his achievements, as a way of validating themselves, more so than celebrating him. (Again, seeing things how you want them to be, vs how they actually are.) Now, in the case of a gay coach, that's trying to force acceptance of a lifestyle, rather than securing equality. It's pretty naive to think there weren't gay coaches in the past. The difference is whether or not they discussed it publicly.
No doubt you'd be just as guilty as I in dismissing books about Lincoln that don't adhere to your view of the man. Of course, this presupposes that all the books are of even quality and accuracy. I'm not even sure that you grasp what I think of him. My take of him stems from the regard that Frederick Douglass had for him after a clash over how to ultimately end slavery. Gradually, Douglass realized that Lincoln opposed slavery just as ardently as he did (although assuredly not with the same fervor given that Douglass had actually been a slave). Lincoln assuaged Douglass that certain concessions had to be made to prejudice to attain the ultimate goal, and Douglass came to understand this maddening but necessary pragmatic approach to the ultimate goal. Yes, Lincoln acknowledged that, as President, he was dispatched with the obligation to preserve the Union, and had no stated duty to end slavery. However, as a man, he realized that emancipation superseded all other causes. He basically played poker to both preserve the union and end slavery. It matters not whether he felt he was superior to blacks or even other whites. He was one of those rare great men who could separate his personal feelings from his intellectual and moral beliefs.
I don't agree with your only tolerance can be attained and forget about acceptance approach. It takes time but usually both eventually fall into place. This is never more evident than with regard to the issue of slavery. Back in the day, slavery was widely accepted, then it was challenged while being compromised but tolerated, and now it almost universally not accepted and certainly not tolerated. A similar path awaits societal attitudes toward homosexuality, as it will progress from being abhorred, to tolerated, and eventually accepted. Decades down the road, our descendants will look back and regard homophobia with the same regard that they have for slavery.
I do not like the visuals in my head. again I do not need to know, Nor does anyone. Love the sinner, not the sin.
Regarding Lincoln, you just proved my point for me. You described Lincoln's approach to ending slavery as "pragmatic." He aimed to gradually phase out slavery, just like I said.
You said earlier:
Well, that's clearly not the case. Lincoln's pragmatic approach probably wouldn't have yielded the end of slavery during his presidency, certainly not his first term. Remember, the war only started because the South seceded. Had they not done so, Lincoln had no plans to use force to abolish slavery. That directly contradicts your assertion that Lincoln would not have regarded the union as worth preserving if it allowed slavery, because it would have allowed slavery during most, if not all, of his presidency.
I'm glad you mentioned this issue about tolerance, because it illustrates how poorly you understand my comments. I never said only tolerance can't be attained. I said it can't be forced. You can't demand acceptance. My point is, you can't make others accept you. I'm not saying acceptance is impossible. I'm saying you can't force it. The only thing you can require of others is that they tolerate you, i.e. honor all your inherent rights and not interfere with your life. If someone disapproves of the gay lifestyle, they have that right, and you can't force them to change their opinion. As long as they don't discriminate or otherwise cause you harm, they are free to limit their tolerance of you to just that.
Last edited:
Why would you think my characterizing Lincoln's approach as pragmatic proved your point? He was notoriously pragmatic. If you remember, one of his great quotes was "I may walk slowly, but I never walk backwards." The South seceded because of its incompatible economic system that was destined to crumble, as it couldn't exist without slavery. The clash was preordained, and you're "only started because" line makes it sound like the war was a quirk of fate. Emancipation was a raging issue and, given his sentiments, Lincoln would have pressed the issue regardless. Not sure where you see a contradiction. I contend that Lincoln was committed to ending slavery and would have relentlessly persisted to achieved that outcome.
Sorry if I didn't fully grasp your comments. Sometimes quick post exchanges require clarification. At any rate, regardless of your precise point on this, I think once things become tolerated, there's usually a graduated transition to acceptance. Be it abolition, universal suffrage, scrapping separate but equal, etc., there's usually immediate opposition and then tolerance and eventually acceptance. I think this will become the norm for future redress of discriminated parties, i.e., gays in the work force.
I think it's fine if we have different opinions, and it's probably time to put this discussion to bed. Football season is nearly upon us.
Last edited:
I explained why Lincoln's"pragmatic" approach proves my point, but I will explain it again.
Remember, this line of discussion started because of a very specific point you mentioned earlier. You said:
Well, that's clearly not the case. Lincoln's pragmatic approach would likely not have ended slavery during his presidency. If Lincoln felt the Union wasn't worth preserving because it allowed slavery, then Lincoln would not have adopted a pragmatic approach. He would have gone "all in" and pressed for radical change while he was actually in office. Under his pragmatic approach, the Union would have existed with slavery, for years, again probably throughout his entire presidency. Even when the war started, Lincoln still didn't press for the immediate end of slavery. It was well into the war that he changed his approach.
To the other point, the war wasn't inevitable. You need to do a little more research on the actual history of the war. Slavery was dying out (as was the South's economic system with it). The southeastern states (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina) were selling off their slaves to the southwestern states (Alabama, Texas, etc.) because the old plantation system simply wasn't profitable anymore. It was dying out. However, that was a temporary fix, because eventually you run out of slaves to sell, and you can't import new ones, as the slave trade was outlawed in 1808. The real problem is Southerners didn't understand modern economics. That's why I said earlier they needed a good economist to come in and straighten them out. A poor understanding of economics lead to irrational decisions, like going to war.
You're certainly dogmatic in your false claim that you proved something. You can set that passage of mine in boldface, underline, and maybe add caps, but it doesn't need to be defended, as Lincoln's abhorrence of slavery remained steadfast. And why wouldn't he have adopted a pragmatic approach? Should he have been reckless and impulsive? Pragmatic proved a sound way to prosecute the war, especially when there were vacillating generals like McClellan to endure, not to mention factions in the North who weren't for the cause. For a practice that was dying out, the South certainly strove to defend slavery with ferocity. Thanks for your suggestion that I do further research, but having read McPherson, Foote, Catton, etc., I really don't think there are more resources I need to consult.
For some reason, you fail to understand my point. A pragmatic approach means the Union would have existed, with slavery, for quite some time. You said, Lincoln wouldn't have felt the Union was worth defending if it allowed slavery. It would have existed, with slavery, under his approach. Maybe I can explain it this way.
Pragmatic approach = slavery exists for some time.
Slavery exists for some time ≠ he wouldn't have felt the union was worth preserving
To the other point. It's not surprising that the Southerners didn't grasp the economic changes. Plenty of people haven't recognized economic/technological changes at a given time. For example, in the 80s, the phone companies didn't realize how cell phones would change their business. The ignored the technology. Now, these are intelligent, educated people, who are experts in the field of communications, and they couldn't see what was coming. It's no surprise that a mostly rural population in the 19th century would be slow on the take.
I understand what you're trying to convey, but the point doesn't make sense. It's not axiomatic that because Lincoln was being pragmatic he placed slavery on the back burner. His goal was to preserve the Union, which would mean that slavery would subsequently be abolished. He laid out this plan to Frederick Douglass, and Douglass, who initially was furious with Lincoln's deliberate pace, was appeased when he was fully consulted. Obviously, everything wouldn't be resolved instantaneously, but the conditions would be set for that to happen. Slavery was cited as the principal casus belli in every seceding state's report, most notably in Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech.
Being blind to economic conditions was one factor that perpetuated the war. That in retrospect their approach seems foredoomed doesn't support any thought that it could be avoided. The South was a product of their way of life and they couldn't envision an alternative.
Yes, the point makes perfect sense. I told you earlier that Lincoln was not a "true believer." Lincoln had no qualms about taking a moderate approach to slavery. He had no problem taking a gradual approach to phase it out. Lincoln wasn't going to risk destroying the Union to eliminate slavery. Hence, the pragmatic, gradual approach. Lincoln was not as fervent an abolitionist as someone like Thaddeus Stevens. Lincoln was willing to work with the South to gradually phase out slavery. Someone like Stevens wanted abolition immediately, and would have gone in with guns blazing to do it, consequences be damned.
Here's the problem. I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Lincoln was an abolitionist. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of how fervent of an abolitionist he was. Abolition was not a singular issue with him, to the point he would have destroyed the entire Union over it.
This goes back to my point about romanticization. You take something that is true (Lincoln was abolitionist), but exaggerate it.
Yes, that absolutely means the war was not inevitable. The problem is, you think Southerners supported slavery because they had some desire specifically to oppress blacks. Southerners supported slavery because they made money off of it (at least they perceived to). If every black in the South had disappeared, Southerners wouldn't have cared, so far as it goes. Their problem was they thought they had no other way to make money without slavery existing.
Last edited:
LOL, this could go on for eternity. I'll conclude by stating that your point makes no sense, as one can be pragmatic still be zealously opposed to slavery. It's somewhat analogous to MLK's more nuanced approach to desegregation vs.that of Malcolm X. You cited Thaddeus Stevens, but we could also cite John Brown, and look what happened to him and his aggressive approach. As to the war being inevitable, read Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephen's cornerstone speech and tell me what room it contained for compromise. I'll acknowledge one thing that's inevitable, and that's that you will respond with a post yet again. I'll not do the same. Methinks you're doing this just to pick up a cheap "like" from Bodi.
Think whatever you like. If you choose not to respond, that's your choice.
You keep illustrating that fact that you don't understand my point. You are making too much of a generalized argument. My argument is about a very specific point you made. You said Lincoln would have not have deemed the Union worth saving if it had slavery. I argued against that very specific point, based on Lincoln's pragmatic approach. If Lincoln didn't deem the the Union worth saving with slavery, then he would not have been pragmatic. He would have simply forced the removal of slavery as soon as he got into office.
Your MLK vs Malcolm X analogy illustrated my point. MLK was against segregation and discrimination, but he didn't want to destroy the whole society to end it. He worked within the system and achieved his desired results. Malcolm X would not have cared if American society was fractured irreparably, there was an outbreak of general violence, etc. In other words, Lincoln & MLK weren't willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as were Malcolm X & Stevens.
Your Alexander Stephens reference yet again illustrates you don't understand my point. Had Southerners had a better understand in, say 1835, of the economic and technological situation, the conditions for war in 1861 would not have even existed. I'll give you an analogy. It wasn't inevitable that Clemson would beat Alabama last year. It only became "inevitable" because Clemson got the ball on the 2 yard line with 5 seconds left. Had they not converted a sequence of plays to get into that position in the first place, their victory would not have been "inevitable."
