Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator

[History Learner]

Its not even a popular narrative they were both literally dictators

Just explaining why it gets controversial.

 

[S'task]

See THIS is what gets me. If these Americans (The English aristocracy wannabes) envied their homeland so much...why not move back to the homeland, unless of course they were the dregs of society that couldn't cut it so they moved to a new land to drain the resources there. I'll be the first to admit that the more I learn about Lincoln the sourer he grows on me, but the South really does seem like they were the Californian progressives of their day and so many of our political issues we face to this day stems from these guys

Because there was no land or property to be had in England? By the 17th century England was heavily divided up and pretty much everything was owned by someone or the Crown. Many of the early settlers to Virginia tended to be second and third sons of wealthy families who would not be inheriting any land and there was no land they could buy back in England. They weren't the "dregs" of society as you so put it, but people for whom the system considered surplus and thus had to seek their own way in the world.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Because there was no land or property to be had in England? By the 17th century England was heavily divided up and pretty much everything was owned by someone or the Crown. Many of the early settlers to Virginia tended to be second and third sons of wealthy families who would not be inheriting any land and there was no land they could buy back in England. They weren't the "dregs" of society as you so put it, but people for whom the system considered surplus and thus had to seek their own way in the world.

I apologize for that statement I'll admit that's my bias talking, as we are seeing the same thing happen in America today (Rich kids seeking thier kingdoms for lack of a better term as everything gets bought up by governments and corporations. Eating up what little is left leaving the rest of us with crumbs) But how do you solve the problem of "More people than planet"?

 

[Zachowon]

Because there was no land or property to be had in England? By the 17th century England was heavily divided up and pretty much everything was owned by someone or the Crown. Many of the early settlers to Virginia tended to be second and third sons of wealthy families who would not be inheriting any land and there was no land they could buy back in England. They weren't the "dregs" of society as you so put it, but people for whom the system considered surplus and thus had to seek their own way in the world.

I apologize for that statement I'll admit that's my bias talking, as we are seeing the same thing happen in America today (Rich kids seeking thier kingdoms for lack of a better term as everything gets bought up by governments and corporations. Eating up what little is left leaving the rest of us with crumbs) But how do you solve the problem of "More people than planet"?

The so called dregs of society, mainly those with debts and the like were sent to GA.
Which as a colony until the 1750s banned slavery

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The so called dregs of society, mainly those with debts and the like were sent to GA.
Which as a colony until the 1750s banned slavery

I fully recend my statement. My apologies.

 

[Zachowon]

I fully recend my statement. My apologies.

Or Australia if they ere really horrible criminals.
Most debtors and the like settled in GA

 

[strunkenwhite]

If Slavery was the sole motivating factor for Southern secession, why didn't the Lincoln Administration's backing of the Corwin Admin fail to soothe Southerners?

I presume you mean why did it fail (vs. didn't). The answer is pointed to in the very material you quoted. Southerners were convinced that the expansion of slavery was vital to the perpetuation of slavery, and the Corwin amendment did not safeguard that expansion.

 

[History Learner]

I presume you mean why did it fail (vs. didn't). The answer is pointed to in the very material you quoted. Southerners were convinced that the expansion of slavery was vital to the perpetuation of slavery, and the Corwin amendment did not safeguard that expansion.

A Constitutional Amendment forever forbidding Federal intrusion on the subject would prevent it's expansion how? Even odder, in this context, is that Lincoln was open to New Mexico entering as a Slave state:

On other issues separating North and South, Lincoln indicated more moderation. He was willing to support a constitutional amendment forever protecting slavery in its present limits. He would enforce a fugitive slave law, though he wanted modifications of the present one, and he favored the repeal of state laws-- called personal liberty laws-- which posed obstacles to the enforcement of fugitive slave acts. And if it would put sectional antagonism permanently to rest, he would even accept the admission into the Union of the New Mexico territory, most likely as a nominal slave state, so long as the further extension of slavery ceased.​

 

[strunkenwhite]

A Constitutional Amendment forever forbidding Federal intrusion on the subject would prevent it's expansion how? Even odder, in this context, is that Lincoln was open to New Mexico entering as a Slave state:

On other issues separating North and South, Lincoln indicated more moderation. He was willing to support a constitutional amendment forever protecting slavery in its present limits. He would enforce a fugitive slave law, though he wanted modifications of the present one, and he favored the repeal of state laws-- called personal liberty laws-- which posed obstacles to the enforcement of fugitive slave acts. And if it would put sectional antagonism permanently to rest, he would even accept the admission into the Union of the New Mexico territory, most likely as a nominal slave state, so long as the further extension of slavery ceased.​

The amendment proposed to forbid the federal government from intruding on the practice of slavery in states that had established such practice as well as apparently the future state of New Mexico. However, as your quote alludes, Republican power seemed poised to prevent the expansion of slavery to any more states; each new free state added thereafter would solidify the slave states as a shrinking minority power bloc. It seems implausible to me that in a world where the Corwin Amendment passed Congress would admit new free states in the numbers required to pass a contradictory constitutional amendment over the slave states' objections (as well as those of any free states uncomfortable with such tactics). Nevertheless the South was adamantly opposed to any compromise that did not guarantee the potential for slavery to expand.

 

[History Learner]

The amendment proposed to forbid the federal government from intruding on the practice of slavery in states that had established such practice as well as apparently the future state of New Mexico. However, as your quote alludes, Republican power seemed poised to prevent the expansion of slavery to any more states; each new free state added thereafter would solidify the slave states as a shrinking minority power bloc. It seems implausible to me that in a world where the Corwin Amendment passed Congress would admit new free states in the numbers required to pass a contradictory constitutional amendment over the slave states' objections (as well as those of any free states uncomfortable with such tactics). Nevertheless the South was adamantly opposed to any compromise that did not guarantee the potential for slavery to expand.

For one, that they had already retreated from a position of no more Slave States to "Okay, just one more.." shows they were willing to be flexible when the South flexed its muscles. The Pico Amendment, which proposed a SoCal Slave State, was also before Congress at this time too.

It's also worth noting at this juncture that Texas, as per its admission to the Union, could divide into five more states and thus offset any effort to ram through an Abolition amendment. Beyond that, though, there were few actually in favor of Abolitionism in 1861 and even as late as 1865, it took several tries to force through the 13th Amendment even after four years of war. Most Northerners were Free-Staters, content to have slavery excluded from their States and territories, but of no desire to see it ended and certainly not to deal with the consequences of Black emancipation:

 

[S'task]

Or Australia if they ere really horrible criminals.
Most debtors and the like settled in GA

Actually, no, at no point were Australia and Georgia being used at the same time. In fact, colonization of Australia was begun as a direct result of losing the American colonies, specifically in fact, losing Georgia as a penal colony.

 

[strunkenwhite]

For one, that they had already retreated from a position of no more Slave States to "Okay, just one more.." shows they were willing to be flexible when the South flexed its muscles. The Pico Amendment, which proposed a SoCal Slave State, was also before Congress at this time too.

It's also worth noting at this juncture that Texas, as per its admission to the Union, could divide into five more states and thus offset any effort to ram through an Abolition amendment. Beyond that, though, there were few actually in favor of Abolitionism in 1861 and even as late as 1865, it took several tries to force through the 13th Amendment even after four years of war. Most Northerners were Free-Staters, content to have slavery excluded from their States and territories, but of no desire to see it ended and certainly not to deal with the consequences of Black emancipation:

Southern fears don't have to have been justified to have existed.

And while we who have the history of how things went to look to may see black freedom and black citizenship as just a step apart from each other, many Northerners decidedly did not! (Let alone black suffrage!) So that's just a red herring.

 

[Zachowon]

Actually, no, at no point were Australia and Georgia being used at the same time. In fact, colonization of Australia was begun as a direct result of losing the American colonies, specifically in fact, losing Georgia as a penal colony.

Oh I know I was more making a joke in jest. Oglethorpe founded GA for the so called dregs and debtors ir England and set it up as a place for them to become anew agin with land and the like. And for a good while the console didn't even have slavery until parliament partially responsible for making them allow ir

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I actually blame manifest destiny. The American experiment began to fall apart when aristocrats looked at the west and said "There's gold and real-estate in dem dare hills!"

Nope, the US would have failed hard if it hadn't expanded west. What has made the US a success unparalleled in human history is that it conquered an entire continent and then successfully integrated its new colonial empire into the whole to the point where the colonies became essentially indistinguishable from the "home land".

The US is a nation whose success is built on conquest, genocide, and colonial repression every bit as ruthless as anything else in history; the one difference is that the US actually succeeded in transitioning its empire into a unified nation state.

And yes, part of that was breaking (to some extent) the power of the states vis a vi the federal government. The Civil War settled the question of succession in the US with a finality that hasn't really been matched anywhere else in the world.

If you want the actual break downs in the "American Experiment" then you are better off looking at 1) the Direct Election of Senators, 2) fixing the size of the House of Representatives, 3) ending Right to Contract, 4) Plessy vs. Ferguson, 5) allowing an Income Tax, 6) the Cold War, and 7) the failed US education system.

Conquering the west was entirely fine for the American Experiment and is arguably what actually made it work (and continue to work) as well as it did/does.

 

[DarthOne]

See THIS is what gets me. If these Americans (The English aristocracy wannabes) envied their homeland so much...why not move back to the homeland, unless of course they were the dregs of society that couldn't cut it so they moved to a new land to drain the resources there. I'll be the first to admit that the more I learn about Lincoln the sourer he grows on me, but the South really does seem like they were the Californian progressives of their day and so many of our political issues we face to this day stems from these guys

Because back in England, they were nobodies and would have to contest with the established aristocratic families.

 

[Zachowon]

Because back in England, they were nobodies and would have to contest with the established aristocratic families.

The key there is established families that have owned said land for so long where as, as you can now, in America buy and own land as an everyday citizen

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The key there is established families that have owned said land for so long where as, as you can now, in America buy and own land as an everyday citizen

We've lost that aspect not just in America but across the globe. No everything is owned by governments and corporations or people from established families with connections to the previous two.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Nope, the US would have failed hard if it hadn't expanded west. What has made the US a success unparalleled in human history is that it conquered an entire continent and then successfully integrated its new colonial empire into the whole to the point where the colonies became essentially indistinguishable from the "home land".

The US is a nation whose success is built on conquest, genocide, and colonial repression every bit as ruthless as anything else in history; the one difference is that the US actually succeeded in transitioning its empire into a unified nation state.

And yes, part of that was breaking (to some extent) the power of the states vis a vi the federal government. The Civil War settled the question of succession in the US with a finality that hasn't really been matched anywhere else in the world.

If you want the actual break downs in the "American Experiment" then you are better off looking at 1) the Direct Election of Senators, 2) fixing the size of the House of Representatives, 3) ending Right to Contract, 4) Plessy vs. Ferguson, 5) allowing an Income Tax, 6) the Cold War, and 7) the failed US education system.

Conquering the west was entirely fine for the American Experiment and is arguably what actually made it work (and continue to work) as well as it did/does.

Your idea of success and my idea of success are very different but I am one of those people that would rather be murdered by a foreigner than "my own people" the way things are now my country will murder me long before any enemy abroad will and frankly that makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

 

[Zachowon]

We've lost that aspect not just in America but across the globe. No everything is owned by governments and corporations or people from established families with connections to the previous two.

I can go buy a plot of land in various states right now.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I can go buy a plot of land in various states right now.

What state?