Barreldriver
02-24-2009, 01:03 AM
Many view Abraham Lincoln as a national hero in the United States for preserving the Federal Union and freeing the slaves in the "Solid South", however there is more to this than meets the eye, Lincoln himself #1 only freed the slaves in the Solid South/the Confederate States, he did not free the slaves in the Union Border States, and he himself was a proven bigot/racist, and he openly admitted that he had dishonest motive behind freeing the slaves. Many say that Lincoln was progressive and ahead of his time, well that's only half true, his action and the result of his action were progressive, but his moral intent/motive was not progressive by any means, and had he not been assassinated many newly freed individuals would have been deported after his re-election. Many often view the Solid South/C.S.A. as a foul confederacy, but in reality they were fighting for the constitutional right to seceed, the right to not be unfairly taxed and tarrifed(Southern money was being taken to fund projects in the North, one of the largest concepts of the Confederacy was that if tax money was taken from a state that money would be used for the advancement of the state that it was taken from), while slavery was a second hand issue, granted a large portion of the Southern economy depended on slavery due to the cotton farming and whatnont, but in reality it could only last so long given the boll weevle that began sweeping across the South during that time that eventually lead to the demise of the Cotton industry within the whole entire South by the time of George Washington Carver, so eventually slave labor would've become obselete on it's own since the South would have to rely on other means of production, so eventually slavery would've most likely fizzled out. Basically the boll weavle hit the regions around Texas first around the time of George Washington Carver's younger years which was before the abolishment of slavery, and by the time he was fully matured and educated in the early 20th century the boll weevle and soil depletion had already hit the whole entire South. So slavery would've lasted a bit longer had the South won, but it eventually would've fizzled because of soil depletion and the boll weevle, and alot of Southern families, mine included, were giving up slavery all together, it was mainly amongst the aristocracy that held slaves, and the aristocracy made up the minority of the people who were loyal to the Confederacy.
Source for the information used to inspire my first paragraph was a book entitled American Lion, it's about the Jackson presidency and the events that lead to the American Civil War, and according to that the main reason for separation was because of constitutional injustice and illegal taxing, and to a lesser extent slavery, and a documentary on the History Channel that I observed that discussed the Lincoln administration and George Washington Carver.
Here are some excerpts from some writings on the subject:
"More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States."
Source: http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2...incoln-racist/
Excerpts from the book "Big Enough to be inconsistent"
"True to its billing, there is hardly a page in Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Johnson Publishing Co.; 652 pages; $35) that won't rile Lincoln's defenders. To start with, says Bennett, Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...996904,00.html
Source for the information used to inspire my first paragraph was a book entitled American Lion, it's about the Jackson presidency and the events that lead to the American Civil War, and according to that the main reason for separation was because of constitutional injustice and illegal taxing, and to a lesser extent slavery, and a documentary on the History Channel that I observed that discussed the Lincoln administration and George Washington Carver.
Here are some excerpts from some writings on the subject:
"More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States."
Source: http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2...incoln-racist/
Excerpts from the book "Big Enough to be inconsistent"
"True to its billing, there is hardly a page in Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Johnson Publishing Co.; 652 pages; $35) that won't rile Lincoln's defenders. To start with, says Bennett, Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...996904,00.html