How do Southerners view Lincoln?

[sonicdrummer20]

I'm curious. Do our Southern friends view Lincoln as a great president? I view him as one of the bravest and for sure the best president of all times.

Does the south still hold a grudge against him?

No grudge, but he didn't really put the United States in a better position by initiating the Emancipation Proclamation. More or less he was a normal human being with an agenda, just so happens that was a popular agenda with the majority at that time. The Civil War was over and the South was still pissed, can you blame them? Lincoln initiated a move that royally screwed the South's livelihood. No slaves = no cotton. And the worst part was you had former slaves laying claim to land that was their bankrupt/dead masters. Hence the reason we have Atlanta.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Lincoln only created the emancipation proclamation to screw the south out of money. The south was a big exporter of cotton to the English and by passing the emancipation proclamation, he forced the English to buy cotton from the Egyptians. It wasn't meant to free slaves. Lincoln was a utilitarian and only went for an abolitionist path because most Americans were against slavery. His personal feelings towards blacks were indifferent.

That is complete horseshit. He absolutely took direct issue with slavery and the treatment of blacks. Yes, he had some misguided ideas about sending them back to Africa, and he wasn't diehard anti-slavery the whole time, but it is very clear that he was anything but indifferent.

My cred, my mom was born in south carolina. I grew up in South Carolina. I was actually born in Denver(my mom was a flight attendent). Lived in South Carolina most of my life.

Anyone who has read history knows some simple things. Lincoln had zero intention of outlawing slavery in existing states. He would just not allow any new states to be admitted into the union as slave owning states.

South Carolina in typical fashion went full retard anyways over this. There would have never been a need for the civil war if South Carolina didn't get all paranoid. Slavery would have eventually ended. Hell border states had just as much slavery as the south.

Lincoln did what he had to do. However, he wasn't some black loving president. He didn't view blacks as being equal nor did he free them for ethical reasons. He did it to win the war and unite the country.

EDIT: By the way, you will get vastly different answers based on education level. Once again, it has more to do with education than anything else. An uneducated redneck will just spew whatever their uneducated family told them.

That was just the first step (limiting new states as being free, which got changed to allowing the states to choose to be free or slave). The Civil War was pretty much inevitable, and the border states is where it really started (the fighting that took place there is what led to war).

I have no idea why people think slavery would have just ended, let alone the ones that think it would have ended on its own in the timeframe of the Civil War. There is nothing that suggests that. If anything, it was actually looking to go the opposite direction as the South would have become even more powerful (the cotton gin would have paved the way for the South to put their slaves to work in textile factories, which the South would have been making as they had the money). Also, many in the South were intending to use slave labor to exploit the new territories. There was simply no reason the South would have voluntarily given up slavery anytime close to the Civil War. Hell, the North was really just starting to (slavery was still quite prevalent in the North even then). You even contradict yourself, the new states had just as much slavery, which is exactly what the indication was, that it was not going to just go away.

If you think that slavery would have just ended, actually go and look at how the Native Americans were treated, human rights (women, children, sick, mentally handicapped, etc), all the way up to the Civil Rights movement. They were all lingering issues of American society that were directly responsible for slavery that lasted for decades (in fact, roughly an entire century after the Civil War, where the issue of slavery was made to be clearly wrong).

 

[Linflas]

No grudge, but he didn't really put the United States in a better position by initiating the Emancipation Proclamation. More or less he was a normal human being with an agenda, just so happens that was a popular agenda with the majority at that time. The Civil War was over and the South was still pissed, can you blame them? Lincoln initiated a move that royally screwed the South's livelihood. No slaves = no cotton. And the worst part was you had former slaves laying claim to land that was their bankrupt/dead masters. Hence the reason we have Atlanta.

And all this time I thought it was due to railroads and geographic location. Kind of the same thing that made it a prime target for Sherman. As for Lincoln I tend to agree with Codewiz in that we don't view him through the rose colored glasses that those in the North view him. On the other hand his assassination was probably worst thing to befall the South after the loss of the war. We will never know for sure but unlike Johnson, Lincoln appeared to have the ability to blunt the worst tendencies of the radicals that wanted to punish the South for the war. In the end like most Southern kids I grew up always wondering "what if?" and realizing that the past is truly unalterable and that in the end preserving the Union was for the best and the end result of the abolition of slavery was something that needed to happen for America to truly live up to its founding ideals.

 

[WelshBloke]

LOL, comparing the Confederate Battle Flag to a Swastika.

You are one funny little man.

Yeah, ones the flag of a defeated, discredited regime with massive civil rights abuses that was looked at with horror by the rest of the civilised world and usually pinned to racists bedroom walls and the other is...:sneaky:

 

[LookBehindYou]

ATOT is the best, from a farting at urinals thread to a history lesson thread in the same forum. Does it get any better? I think not.

 

[Codewiz]

That is complete horseshit. He absolutely took direct issue with slavery and the treatment of blacks. Yes, he had some misguided ideas about sending them back to Africa, and he wasn't diehard anti-slavery the whole time, but it is very clear that he was anything but indifferent.



That was just the first step (limiting new states as being free, which got changed to allowing the states to choose to be free or slave). The Civil War was pretty much inevitable, and the border states is where it really started (the fighting that took place there is what led to war).

I have no idea why people think slavery would have just ended, let alone the ones that think it would have ended on its own in the timeframe of the Civil War. There is nothing that suggests that. If anything, it was actually looking to go the opposite direction as the South would have become even more powerful (the cotton gin would have paved the way for the South to put their slaves to work in textile factories, which the South would have been making as they had the money). Also, many in the South were intending to use slave labor to exploit the new territories. There was simply no reason the South would have voluntarily given up slavery anytime close to the Civil War. Hell, the North was really just starting to (slavery was still quite prevalent in the North even then). You even contradict yourself, the new states had just as much slavery, which is exactly what the indication was, that it was not going to just go away.

If you think that slavery would have just ended, actually go and look at how the Native Americans were treated, human rights (women, children, sick, mentally handicapped, etc), all the way up to the Civil Rights movement. They were all lingering issues of American society that were directly responsible for slavery that lasted for decades (in fact, roughly an entire century after the Civil War, where the issue of slavery was made to be clearly wrong).

You can argue all you want but history proves that slavery would have eventually ended in the US. Would it have taken longer? Absolutely. Look at the rest of the world. The US wasn't the only nation using slaves. Does slavery still exist in large numbers today? No it doesn't.

LARGE populations in the US were against slavery during the time of the civil war. Even without the war, those numbers would have increased to the point that it would have been outlawed.

Neither of us can win this argument but I will say that slavery not existing much in the world today is proof that slavery can end without civil war.

 

[highland145]

You can argue all you want but history proves that slavery would have eventually ended in the US. Would it have taken longer? Absolutely. Look at the rest of the world. The US wasn't the only nation using slaves. Does slavery still exist in large numbers today? No it doesn't.

LARGE populations in the US were against slavery during the time of the civil war. Even without the war, those numbers would have increased to the point that it would have been outlawed.

Neither of us can win this argument but I will say that slavery not existing much in the world today is proof that slavery can end without civil war.

Would countries like Saudi, with a small ruling class and a large servant population, not be considered a type of slavery system?

Asking not arguing.

 

[Codewiz]

Would countries like Saudi, with a small ruling class and a large servant population, not be considered a type of slavery system?

Asking not arguing.

Depends on the definition. You could argue that we still have slavery in this country if you go down that route. We pay illegals very little to do hard labor.

Anytime there is a large disparity between upper class and the poverty class, you could try to call it slavery. But in the strictest sense of the word, it isn't.

 

[highland145]

Depends on the definition. You could argue that we still have slavery in this country if you go down that route. We pay illegals very little to do hard labor.

Anytime there is a large disparity between upper class and the poverty class, you could try to call it slavery. But in the strictest sense of the word, it isn't.

Got it but serfdom sure would suck. No way to escape.

 

[sdifox]

Would countries like Saudi, with a small ruling class and a large servant population, not be considered a type of slavery system?

Asking not arguing.

yeah, they are still operating in the fiefdom mentality.

 

[highland145]

Depends on the definition. You could argue that we still have slavery in this country if you go down that route. We pay illegals very little to do hard labor.

Got to thinking about it, from their point of view they may be/are moving up from their situation in S.A. No other way for them to make $$ like they can here. Yes, we(some of us) are taking advantage of a cheap labor source but it's a willing labor source.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I don't think of him much, but my opinion is generally favorable. I imagine a tall, wise, noble-acting guy with a deep voice. Honestly, my opinion is based as much on his appearance in photographs as anything he did.

Edit: I live in central Lousiana

 

[darkswordsman17]

You can argue all you want but history proves that slavery would have eventually ended in the US. Would it have taken longer? Absolutely. Look at the rest of the world. The US wasn't the only nation using slaves. Does slavery still exist in large numbers today? No it doesn't.

LARGE populations in the US were against slavery during the time of the civil war. Even without the war, those numbers would have increased to the point that it would have been outlawed.

Neither of us can win this argument but I will say that slavery not existing much in the world today is proof that slavery can end without civil war.

Are you joking? History doesn't prove anything of the sort. However, it does exactly prove my stance. It did not just go away anywhere, it required bloodshed (if you think it just went away anywhere you're very ignorant, it took a lot of fighting for the UK to realize they shouldn't be treating people like shit, likewise for basically everywhere else in the world). Slavery not existing in the world is directly resultant of that. You can argue that its not technically slavery, but the results are the same (actually many times even worse). Slavery is something that will never go peacefully on a large scale (and nowhere was that scale bigger than in the US), because there is nothing at all peaceful to it. I'd argue that it actually even got worse throughout the rest of the world (see the Imperial Japanese treatment of well, all of Asia pretty much, the Soviet Union, the various fascist states, etc), mainly because those places did not have a clear line in the sand until WWII and later. Hell, as I pointed out, the US really was not even over slavery until about the 1970s, and even today there's extensive racial tension that exists in far too much of the US.

You can ignore history if you want, but it very clearly does not support this bullshit theory that slavery just ends.

 

[Codewiz]

Are you joking? History doesn't prove anything of the sort. However, it does exactly prove my stance. It did not just go away anywhere, it required bloodshed (if you think it just went away anywhere you're very ignorant, it took a lot of fighting for the UK to realize they shouldn't be treating people like shit, likewise for basically everywhere else in the world). Slavery not existing in the world is directly resultant of that. You can argue that its not technically slavery, but the results are the same (actually many times even worse). Slavery is something that will never go peacefully on a large scale (and nowhere was that scale bigger than in the US), because there is nothing at all peaceful to it. I'd argue that it actually even got worse throughout the rest of the world (see the Imperial Japanese treatment of well, all of Asia pretty much, the Soviet Union, the various fascist states, etc), mainly because those places did not have a clear line in the sand until WWII and later. Hell, as I pointed out, the US really was not even over slavery until about the 1970s, and even today there's extensive racial tension that exists in far too much of the US.

You can ignore history if you want, but it very clearly does not support this bullshit theory that slavery just ends.

You have some anger issues to begin with. Your whole post is very light on the facts and evidence.

Please provide the historical proof that other countries required civil wars with more than half a million deaths to end slavery. I want to see this evidence.

 

[Codewiz]

All pulled from Wiki:

British. No war required.

In 1772, the Somersett Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett)[311] of the English Court of King's Bench ruled that slavery was unlawful in England (although not elsewhere in the British Empire). A similar case, that of Joseph Knight, took place in Scotland five years later and ruled slavery to be contrary to the law of Scotland.
Following the work of campaigners in the United Kingdom, such as William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was passed by Parliament on 25 March 1807, coming into effect the following year. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to outlaw entirely the Atlantic slave trade within the whole British Empire.
The significance of the abolition of the British slave trade lay in the number of people hitherto sold and carried by British slave vessels. Britain shipped 2,532,300 Africans across the Atlantic, equalling 41% of the total transport of 6,132,900 individuals. This made the British empire the biggest slave-trade contributor in the world due to the magnitude of the empire. A fact that made the abolition act all the more damaging to the global trade of slaves.[312]
The Slavery Abolition Act, passed on 23 August 1833, outlawed slavery itself in the British colonies. On 1 August 1834 all slaves in the British West Indies, were emancipated, but still indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system. The intention of, was to educate former slaves to a trade but instead allowed slave owners to maintain ownership illegally. The act was finally repealed in 1838.[313]
Britain abolished slavery in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.[314]
Domestic slavery practised by the educated African coastal elites (as well as interior traditional rulers) in Sierra Leone was abolished in 1928. A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.[315][316]


France, no civil war required:

There were slaves in mainland France (especially in trade ports such as Nantes or Bordeaux).,[317] but the institution was never officially authorized there. The legal case of Jean Boucaux in 1739 clarified the unclear legal position of possible slaves in France, and was followed by laws that established registers for slaves in mainland France, who were limited to a three-year stay, for visits or learning a trade. Unregistered "slaves" were regarded as free. However, slavery was of vital importance in France's Caribbean possessions, especially Saint-Domingue. In 1793, influenced by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of August 1789 and alarmed as the massive slave revolt of August 1791 that had become the Haitian Revolution threatened to ally itself with the British, the French Revolutionary commissioners Sonthonax and Polverel declared general emancipation to reconcile them with France. In Paris, on 4 February 1794, Abbé Grégoire and the Convention ratified this action by officially abolishing slavery in all French territories outside mainland France, freeing all the slaves both for moral and security reasons.
Napoleon sent troops to the Caribbean in 1802 to try to re-establish slavery due to the economic stress France was suffering while fighting all over Europe. They succeeded in Guadeloupe, but the ex-slaves of Saint-Domingue defeated the French corps that was sent and declared independence. This colony became Haiti, the first black republic, on 1 January 1804, with at its head the leader of the revolt, Toussaint Louverture.[95] Slavery in the French colonies was finally abolished only in 1849.


It goes on. War is not needed to end slavery. Hate to break it to you......

Was it needed in the US? Yes, if the goal was to keep the US together as Lincoln needed. Once again because South Carolina was extremely paranoid.

 

[Tobolo]

You live in Newnan.

LOL.

Although, as being from Griffin, I can say that Newnan is a lot better than some other places. I always laugh when I drive down to Tifton because some guy still has a Confederate flag flying over I-75.

And I don't mean a little flag either.

 

[Linflas]

You have some anger issues to begin with. Your whole post is very light on the facts and evidence.

Please provide the historical proof that other countries required civil wars with more than half a million deaths to end slavery. I want to see this evidence.

You are expecting way too much. People today aren't even willing to think out why slavery existed on a large scale in the south while it basically withered away in the north. It is much easier to just apply simplistic "racism" excuses and move on rather than delve into the origins of the institution in the western hemisphere, the spread of it and the eventual abolition of it in the Americas including the fact that the United States was not the last country to abolish it.

 

[Jeeebus]

I think they view him the same way people in the North do - by visiting Oak Ridge cemetery in Springfield, Illinois.

 

[highland145]

Code, wonder if the Brits weren't giving America "the business" after that little disagreement a few years earlier..

 

[Codewiz]

You are expecting way too much. People today aren't even willing to think out why slavery existed on a large scale in the south while it basically withered away in the north. It is much easier to just apply simplistic "racism" excuses and move on rather than delve into the origins of the institution in the western hemisphere, the spread of it and the eventual abolition of it in the Americas including the fact that the United States was not the last country to abolish it.

Umm who thinks slavery had to do with race?

I think you are applying a position to me that I do not support. I do not believe that slavery would have ended in the same timeframe without the civil war. I am absolutely NOT taking that position slavery would have ended in anywhere near the same timeframe.

However, I believe with human progress, the economic incentive along with moral issues with slavery would have resulted in the end of slavery in the US without the civil war.

In the end, our history is what happened. Civil war ended slavery and the end of slavery was for the better. Hell I haven't even argued that Lincoln was wrong. I think Lincoln did exactly what he needed to do to keep the country together.

 

[Linflas]

Umm who thinks slavery had to do with race?

I think you are applying a position to me that I do not support. I do not believe that slavery would have ended in the same timeframe without the civil war. I am absolutely NOT taking that position slavery would have ended in anywhere near the same timeframe.

However, I believe with human progress, the economic incentive along with moral issues with slavery would have resulted in the end of slavery in the US without the civil war.

In the end, our history is what happened. Civil war ended slavery and the end of slavery was for the better. Hell I haven't even argued that Lincoln was wrong. I think Lincoln did exactly what he needed to do to keep the country together.

Sorry if it wasn't clear but I wasn't implying that you believed race had anything to do with it but it is hard to have a rational discussion of this topic as this is mainly how it is taught today and the folks that you are responding may well have this simplistic view of it. There was another thread around here recently that basically insisted that the war was all about freeing the slaves rather than the fairly complex concept that for some that was the reason but for most it was all about the relationship between the states themselves as well as the states and the Federal Government with slavery being the issue that brought the matter to civil war.

 

[lupi]

Somewhat mediocre but given much higher standing based on ending the war than what would otherwise have been deserved.

 

[SAWYER]

I am from Arkansas and lived here my whole life. I was not raised in a racist home but the stereotypes that all southern people are racists is ridiculous. Racism is also not exclusive to whites or southerners, try getting out of your car in Orange Mound in Memphis lol

 

[dainthomas]

Around the time we stopped winning wars.

Civil War: 4 years: Win
WW1: 4 years: Win
WW2: <3 years (for the US): Win

Then the politicians took over.

Korea: 3 years: Tie
Vietnam: 23 years: Loss
Iraq: 8+ years: Ongoing fiasco
Afghanistan: 9+ years: Ongoing fiasco

Sure scorched-earth type warfare really sucks, but the argument can be made that once the suffering of the civilian population becomes intolerable, the will of their military to fight naturally fades.

 

[eits]

That is complete horseshit. He absolutely took direct issue with slavery and the treatment of blacks. Yes, he had some misguided ideas about sending them back to Africa, and he wasn't diehard anti-slavery the whole time, but it is very clear that he was anything but indifferent.

politically, he didn't push too much for abolition until there was enough support behind it. he was indifferent towards it politically because he's a utilitarian. personally, however, he was against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/emancipation_proclamation

the emancipation proclamation didn't free any slaves directly. it indirectly freed them. it was a document that forced the hand of the south to either stop fighting and join the union or give up their slaves. they could keep their slaves if they joined the union. it also was aimed at embarrassing european nations who supported the south's inexpensive, quality cotton into no longer buying slave cotton, thus crippling the south's economy. that's why european countries started buying egyptian cotton. american cotton was superior to egyptian cotton back then because it was longer and weighed less. also, iirc, there was drama going on that prevented easy routes towards getting indian and turkish cotton.