Obama: Controversy on Memorial Day

[Baill Inneraora]

You need to watch the program about Lincoln on the History channel.

Again, too little knowledge leads to errors. I think you need to re-watch the show Will E. The South did not secede because Lincoln took away their rights. South Carolina succeeded (and most of the others soon followed) about 3 months BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated. So how exactly could they leave the Union because of Lincoln taking away their rights.

The only “rights” Lincoln took from the states that were in rebellion was their “right” to own other human beings, but even that didn’t happen until almost 2 years after they started succeeding and a year and a half after the war started.

 

[Spleen]

What a day for a daydream, What a day for a daydreamin' boy. :sunny:

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Why can't you just give a straight response? I, and many others, have pointed out how wrong you are, and yet you continue to ignore it.

I feel like I'm playing chess with a baby.

 

[georges]

can't we all get along???

 

[TwatDetective]

Again, too little knowledge leads to errors. I think you need to re-watch the show Will E. The South did not secede because Lincoln took away their rights. South Carolina succeeded (and most of the others soon followed) about 3 months BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated. So how exactly could they leave the Union because of Lincoln taking away their rights.

Good Post.
They left because they were afraid U.S. Lincoln, once elected, would free the slaves. (Even though he specifically said otherwise during the election, and his inaugural address.)

The only “rights” Lincoln took from the states that were in rebellion was their “right” to own other human beings, but even that didn’t happen until almost 2 years after they started succeeding and a year and a half after the war started.

Correct about. Also, the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves in the border/neutral states that still have slavery.

To the South it really was about slavery, they just hid under states rights. To the North, it really wasn't about slavery. It was about preserving the Union.

Personally, I think a state has the right to secede, but not the right to take other human beings as slaves with them, so I think the Civil War should have been fought, but about slavery from begin.

 

[Friday on my mind]

While Lincoln was an abolishinist he was not going to be able to just "free the slaves" when elected as much as he might have liked too.

The real threat to the south and their being able to maintain there slave based economy was what a future being in the union held.The country had already come close to crisis over slavery well before Lincoln came along as exampled by the 1820 missouri compromise and then the 1850 compromise.

The South knew that as more and more territories were admitted as states that they could not depend on those compromises which were basically for every free state admitted to the union there would be one slave state also, keeping a balance and preserving slavery.That was not going to continue was already well accepted and that more free than slave states were in the future and the election of Lincoln just affirmed that was the trend.And that over time the imbalance of more free than slave states would mean the end of slavery.

The south forced the issue in 1860 and its true most northerners fought to preserve the union.But it was inevitable during that process that the real underlying cause for the war "slavery" would have to be dealt with in the way it was.

And while the defeat of the south did not mean everything was solved and the former slaves had true equality it was at least a good step and one side was right and one side was wrong and the right won.

 

[HeartBroker]

McCain, aka The SlaveMaster Whitey

Wow, I didn't think you took the radical stance on anything TR ?

 

[Yankeefan21325]

So Obama acknowledges southern soldiers from the Civil war on Memorial day and it is a controversy, so you say. But if he doesn't, then someone would also say it was a controversy because he is black and won't acknowledge them. Everyone knows this is damned if you do and damned if you dont.

 

[jasonk282]

You have badly misinterpreted the controversy. The issue was not about sending aides, which all presidents do, but whether or not a black president should be "honoring" Confederate dead in the first place.

Confederate or Union they are all Americans. Lighten up it's part of our American history. Obama's father was born in Africa so he was not a product of the slaves hence no problem.

 

[Galactic]

What? As most people have figure out Obama is not truly black.
His mother was white. :yinyang:

Not only should he and every President place a wreath on their tombs, they should apologize for saying the Civil War was fought over slavery.

Also, the South should seceded from the Union and elect their own President.

:hatsoff:

New states added to the South:
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, New Jersey,
Delaware, and Maryland.

You continue to AMAZE me with your posts.....and that is not a compliment.

 

[Member2019]

You continue to AMAZE me with your posts.....and that is not a compliment.

He's purposely being offensive, while still having a point. If you look past the assumptions of racism, and to his greater point, you'll see it.

Sometimes people purposely say things to "get your goat," while still reaching the realities of the argument. I don't agree with it, but what he says is not untrue and not founded in racism.

It's more founded in counter-rhetoric than racism.

Obama's father was born in Africa so he was not a product of the slaves hence no problem.

Rep! I'm honestly tired of people claiming they are minorities when they are not.

There are two minorities in the US:
- African Americans, of actual, American ancestory
- Native Americans

Everyone else could easily claim they have been discriminated against as much as any other, sans these two.
That would include much of my Irish ancestory, because they entered the US when Irish immigrants where heavily discriminated against.

 

[Neutron66]

I love historical debates on the internet.

As long as there's Google and Wikipedia everybody is an "expert."

 

[calpoon]

Rep! I'm honestly tired of people claiming they are minorities when they are not.

There are two minorities in the US:
- African Americans, of actual, American ancestory
- Native Americans

Everyone else could easily claim they have been discriminated against as much as any other, sans these two.
That would include much of my Irish ancestory, because they entered the US when Irish immigrants where heavily discriminated against.

That makes no sense. African immigrants aren't a minority? I would assume that since there are less of them, then they would be an even smaller minority than "native" black americans.

I also don't see how that precludes discrimination. While you are correct about Irish and other turn of the (20th) century immigrants, I think that the anti-immigrant sentiment (against Europeans) largely went "out of fashion" after the first and second world wars. By then the immigration waves had slowed and frankly a white person was a white person and a black person was a black person in popular sentiment, regardless of origin.

 

[Member2019]

Changing the argument ...

That makes no sense. African immigrants aren't a minority? I would assume that since there are less of them, then they would be an even smaller minority than "native" black americans.

Argumentative. You know what I meant. Don't change the argument to what it is not.

I also don't see how that precludes discrimination. While you are correct about Irish and other turn of the (20th) century immigrants, I think that the anti-immigrant sentiment (against Europeans) largely went "out of fashion" after the first and second world wars. By then the immigration waves had slowed and frankly a white person was a white person and a black person was a black person in popular sentiment, regardless of origin.

Anyone of African decent that entered this country in the '70s or later really doesn't have any argument, unless they have ancestory to someone who was.

Sorry, otherwise everyone has a claim as a minority. It's sorta rediculous when we're giving "Minority" business and other preferences to some demographics that actually have some of the highest median incomes.

The major discrimination in the US today is poor and those with less opportunities as a result. People really need to remove race so we can address the real issues. In fact, it's one of the major complaints about the NAACP by the Urban League.

Let's make it about poor and underprivileged, not blacks. Making it about blacks just means affluent African Americans qualify more often and get more opportunities that they don't need, versus underprivileged African Americans.

 

[calpoon]

Re: Changing the argument ...

Let's make it about poor and underprivileged, not blacks. Making it about blacks just means affluent African Americans qualify more often and get more opportunities that they don't need, versus underprivileged African Americans.

Oh, I totally agree. I just think that minorities, people who are discriminated against, and people who may require some sort of social services are not all the same thing in all cases.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Changing the argument ...

Oh, I totally agree. I just think that minorities, people who are discriminated against, and people who may require some sort of social services are not all the same thing in all cases.

It's extremely difficult to quantify it in a way that can be legislated in a blanket, especially today. Again, I cite only two races with a specific ancestory/history.

Discrimination must otherwise be taken on an individual case-by-case basis. Anyone who wants to use a blanket will, coincidentally and quite ironically, cause discrimination in reverse.