President Abe (Us, not Japan)

[bovinespy]

You make it sound like they were world-leaders in this regard. The international slave trade was largely dead by this point in time.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
Here is the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States.
Would you kindly point me to the section that eradicates slavery after 20 years? I can't seem to find it. It's in the same constitution that says this, though:
" No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"

Well, actually, the United States was a world leader in the abolition movement of the time. The Constitutional reference you're looking for is from Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

As I noted in an earlier post in this very thread, the United States was actually ahead of the United Kingdom in this regard, as it took until 1807 for Parliament to pass the Slave Trade Act.

Otherwise, I think your post was excellent and dead-on. Of course, the War was about slavery. It went way beyond a mere economic grievance, which can rationally be sorted out, to verge into the realm of the quasi-religious, where no disagreement is permissible.

This is the money quote:

From Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens's "Cornerstone Speech," Savannah, March 21, 1861:
“ (Thomas Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.

ETA: Your reference to bills of attainder came from the same Article and Section (Clause 3).

 

[meatwad4289]

My 0.2$:

George Washington is not a civ leader. He should never have been chosen as a civ leader.
He was a general. A military leader. Only chosen as first President because he won the war. But winning wars isn't the sole definition of a leader.
If they wanted a leader from that era, it should have been Thomas Jefferson. Great man, often overshadowed thanks to the fact that he didn't kill anybody.

Well, see Washington did alot, He set up the two term precedent, I mean who would want to turn down power? He maintained order by stomping out rebellions through words, then force if necessary. He was elected President because he was the War Hero. Many Presidents were war heroes, Washington, Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and various others I cant think of right now.

I will agree with you Thomas Jefferson was a Great man, and definately deserves to be in the game. But deserves it more than Washington? I say equal. After wall, The Pen of The Revolution is only as Powerful as the Sword that backs it up. These are two leaders who were EXACTLY what was needed at the time, and I believe that is what made them near perfect for the job.

George Washington was a great leader (IMHO) because he stepped down after two terms. Setting the two term precedent. Relinquishing that kind of power in itself is a great act.... Also his Farewell address speaks volumes about the man.

Jefferson should also be in... Much more than Abe or FDR.

Competely Agree. Washington and Jefferson were much better than Abe or FDR, IMHO. I was totally suprised not to see the great one in the game at all though. By Great one I'm referring to Theodore Roosevelt, one of the Greatest (IMO THE GREATEST) President of All time. I love TR lol, He's like what every President SHOULD BE lol

I'm well-read in history. We've just come to different conclusions.

I can agree on that.

I disagree. I think nearly every issue the south comes up with, whether its states rights, tariffs, cultural differences, industrialization, etc. It all boils down to the south's economy being based on slave labor, and it crippled the rest of their economy because free men can't compete with slave labor.

But the Confederacy was planning to End slavery, They needed to readjust their economy, and had every plan on doing it, however, it's difficult to put such a plan into action if your at war. If there had been no war, Its a good possibility that the south would of moved towards abolishing Slavery within a 20 year span in a similar fashion they planned before being iinvaded. If it was slavery, then the border states would of been at fault as well, and they weren't. Thats my opinion on the matter.

You make it sound like they were world-leaders in this regard. The international slave trade was largely dead by this point in time.

Wrong. The International Slave trade wasn't long dead, the North still participated in it heavily. Little known fact, No slave ship has ever been in a Southern Port since they broke from England. No Confederate Flag ever flew over a slave ship. Even after the war, Northern Business men were still participating in the slave trade, in many cases Native Americans were kidnapped and sent to slave holding countries.

I'll admit I'm not familiar with this, so if you could provide more details here I'd appreciate it.

The Confederate Constitution limited the slave trade to only trading within it's self and with the United States, as a start towards ending slavery. A bill was made requesting to expand the trade to other nations, Jefferson Davis Vetoed this bill, it was one of his first acts(from the books I remember I believe it was THE first)

I don't know how you can say he was anti-slavery, since he owned slaves.
Sounds really anti-slavery to me. Also, in 1860 Davis submitted six resolutions to the Senate, including the right to maintain slavery in the South. Again, sounds really anti-slavery.
And yes, the economy depended on it, which is why they were fighting to preserve it.

Jefferson had slaves, and Jefferson was anti-slavery. J. Davis was anti slavery, He broke U.S. Laws, by educating his slaves. His theory was that in order to be freed the slaves needed to be educated on what freedom is. And he did just that. Six resolutions, 1 maintaining slavery? or six resolutions maintiaining slavery? Regardless it's not a question of maintaining slavery, Jefferson Davis had a choice, He could Eliminate slavery immediately, destroying his new found nations economy when they needed it most, He could Expand slavery increasing the chance that foreign nations(England and France) would not assist, and going against the CSA constitution made to limit slavery, or he could maintain slavery and gradually filter it out. The third is the best choice for hsi situation, and thats what he did. Jefferson Davis wanted foreign support in the war, why would he do something that he believed was wrong and lose foreign support in the war? It wasn't to win Votes, CSA Constitution states Presidents serve one 6 year term. Hell the guy considered emancipating the slaves himself inorder to win British and French support, but felt the country would see him in the same light as Lincoln, in removing states rights, and reject him and the government.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
Here is the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States.
Would you kindly point me to the section that eradicates slavery after 20 years? I can't seem to find it. It's in the same constitution that says this, though:
" No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"

The constitution prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories.

One thats wikipedia. two, I read atleast 6 books(with different views on the civil war) with the same information that the Confederate Congress planned to eradicate slavery within 20 years. I assumed this to be i nthe constitution, but I guess it isn't, It's been about 5 years since I read these books, and they are currently packed away waiting to be moved to a new home, I will however search for the information on this, and I'll send it to you when I find it with source and all.

One of the things the south was complaining about is the North's refusal to expand slavery into to the western territories. Most southern soldiers may not have owned slaves, but they had the dream of one day holding slaves. And they believed in the institution of slavery and institutionalized racism.

Well, Most Southern Soldiers, did not have slaves, and nor did they feel as though they were fighting for slavery. In msot cases they didn't care about slavery. Hell, Lee was anti slavery, and Grant was pro slavery even refusing to give his up until congress forced hi mto do so. institutionalized racism? Did you know there were black slave owners? did you know there were white slaves? now granted for the most part white slaves were indentured servants that were never released from servitude. I've read books and seen stories on History channel in which there were black slave owners, and the Union would come to their door as the marched through, and ask where the master is and they'd tell them, and in some cases be laughed at, and in other cases be struck for "back talking to a superior" some of these slave masters were women. Institutionalized Racism, where all Races can be master and slave. Yay.

Btw, in the North, they'd kidnap blacks and Native Americans kill them or sell them into slavery soemtiems hanging them in the streets skinning them alive, torturing them, a little bit on the Ku Klux Klan side, if not worse.

Whats more racist, the guys that give food and shelter(in many cases in the South money) to people who are forced to work on them, with the occasional nutjob dishing out whippings, or the common nutjobs kidnapping and torturing and eventually selling or killing free men of various colors, for no real reason. A few people in New York were... Fixed so they couldnt spread the "bad blood" ofcourse they mostly died anyway from the wound, be it infection or blood loss. Racism isn't a one way street, and it sure as hell happens everywhere. Why? because everyone is racist, even if it's just a little.

Wow, well you don't need to be so condescending.
I'm well aware of both sides of the story, I just think that modern pro-confederacy historians are overlooking the giant elephant in the room.

Well you didn't need to have ignorant post from before. You lashed out, I lashed back. And I think that modern pro-union historians are seeing a gray mouse through a magnify glass.

Here's a few more historical perspectives:
According to historian Kenneth M. Stampp, each section used states' rights arguments when convenient, and shifted positions when convenient.[20]

Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat. Stampp said that Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[21]

Stephens' supported slavery, in his own personal belief it was fine. However, in the belief of the Confederacy and the People it was State's Rights. The majority of the population didn't own slaves, why would they fight for slavery? Why would the support something they don't have.

The historian William C. Davis also mentioned inconsistencies in Southern states' rights arguments. He explained the Confederate Constitution's protection of slavery at the national level as follows:

To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.[22]

wow and wrong. The states were allowed to do as they wished, plain and simple. The States had more power than the federal Government, States were given the right to decide what they wanted, before they could be told what to do. The Federal Government Could not make laws to ban slavery.

also:

From Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens's "Cornerstone Speech," Savannah, March 21, 1861:
“ (Thomas Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.

As stated in his speech, The heads and members of Government, would be able to speak their minds and not the minds of the administration or political party. Also you took it out of context. One, He wasn't referring to Thomas Jefferson's specific ideas, he was referring to the general idea that eventually slavery would fade away on its own. as he states "It was a sandy foundation, and when the storm came the wind blew." It was a flawed idea to not settle it. now he is racist, most people believed their race to be superior to all other races, This is true for most races. especially back then. The speech is alot different when you read it in it's correct form instead of mashing in sentences from different parts together, and placing "[Thomas Jefferson's] ideas" instead of the real idea's and makers of these ideas.

 

[GeneralMatt]

As I noted in an earlier post in this very thread, the United States was actually ahead of the United Kingdom in this regard, as it took until 1807 for Parliament to pass the Slave Trade Act.

But of course they actually did a lot more on their resolution, which says something as a lot of the time the big guys do not like to step into a situation and remedy it, especially when it is nor beneficial, or even detrimental to their well being or short term economics.

It is one thing to say you will do something, another thing entirely to do it.
I would say the Royal Navy was a lot bigger deterrent against the slave trade than the whole US country at that time.

Now do not think that I am American bashing or anything, though I sometimes feel like it. I just think the UK, and the RN did a lot more to stop the slave trade than the US.

 

[meatwad4289]

But of course they actually did a lot more on their resolution, which says something as a lot of the time the big guys do not like to step into a situation and remedy it, especially when it is nor beneficial, or even detrimental to their well being or short term economics.

It is one thing to say you will do something, another thing entirely to do it.
I would say the Royal Navy was a lot bigger deterrent against the slave trade than the whole US country at that time.

Now do not think that I am American bashing or anything, though I sometimes feel like it. I just think the UK, and the RN did a lot more to stop the slave trade than the US.

Well considering, all any one wantign to trade slaves had to do was throw up the american flag lol. Besides lots of money was made by New England States through the slave trade, from constructing the ships(some later to be refitted for war against the south) to funding operations and reaping the rewards from selling slaves.

 

[CorneliusScipio]

now granted for the most part white slaves were indentured servants that were never released from servitude.

I'm calling BS on this one right now. There may have been indentured servitude with whites in early Colonial America, but there is absolutely no way there was a single indentured servant left in 1860. I'd like to see any shred of evidence that it still existed then.


Btw, in the North, they'd kidnap blacks and Native Americans kill them or sell them into slavery soemtiems hanging them in the streets skinning them alive, torturing them, a little bit on the Ku Klux Klan side, if not worse.

Broad generalizations anyone? I could just as well say "In the South, they'd brutally whip their slaves, and lynch any black they could get their hands on, and were the original Ku Klux Klan." Obviously these are broad generalizations not at all representing the South as a whole, but can you honestly say, with a straight face, that those things people from the North did were any more common than those I've posted here below?

I don't see how this is a valid point at all, when you have given no evidence to support it, and you simply want to discredit the North by portraying the Southern slaveowner to be the benevolent man while every Northerner is a brutal racist pig.

 

[aelf]

It was not meant to contradict, just to emphasize that it was not because the line of defense wasn't complete - because it was replaced with a very strong force - but because the entire alied army was commited otn that line. and it was obvious that once a weak point in the line would be found, and enough force would be commited there, the line would break, and all hell would break loose (without reserves).

Technically, the Line did not break. The Germans went through the part where there was no Line and where the bulk of the Allied forces were not at.

 

[Dominico]

Its one thing to write up a constitution and take the name of the creators of democracy but reality is often a long ways off. Black americans had few rights up into the 1960's and many still claim they are unfairly treated, though nowhere near as they were around the mid 20th century. Writing a line in a paper is a difference to how the country actually acts.

As pointed out it is true the RN were fighting to stop slave trade so this points to actual postive action rather that unratified writings.

From a game point of view though for americans the anti slave speach makes a good tag for the tech, so i agree with it being there just so long as most people understand its place in global slavery, which i think most do.

 

[GeneralMatt]

From a game point of view though for americans the anti slave speach makes a good tag for the tech, so i agree with it being there just so long as most people understand its place in global slavery, which i think most do.

Just like the Magna Carter I think it was being quoted for the Constitution, though really the Magna Carter was quite a ways earlier than you normally get Constitution in Civiization...

They work great.

 

[Love]

I hate slavery

 

[JohnnyRico]

Ever hear of T-34s, the best tank in history? Katyuhas MRLs? Georghi Zhukov? Timoshenko? Vassili Zeitsev?

They were the biggest and best army on Earth by the end of the war. Apart from the factors listed above, they were the most battle-hardened. I suspect ideology might have blinded you. Some americans like to tell Europeans "if it werent for us you guys would be speaking German right now". Actually it was the Red amry who saved Europe, not the Americans or Brits

???Im sorry but i have to comment:
"The red army saved Europe"???? from what? 1/2 a continent spending 1/2 a century in slavery to a corrupt ideology? Yeah they prevented a lot of peoples from speaking german only to replace it with russian. They killed raped an thieved their way across the continent which I wouldnt call "saving".

 

[meatwad4289]

now granted for the most part white slaves were indentured servants that were never released from servitude.

I'm calling BS on this one right now. There may have been indentured servitude with whites in early Colonial America, but there is absolutely no way there was a single indentured servant left in 1860. I'd like to see any shred of evidence that it still existed then.

Seriously? I was taught this in Elementary and middle school. White slaves were indentured servants, who were never released, this was a small FRACTION of the country, meaning it was only a few dozen people. But it still happened.

Btw, in the North, they'd kidnap blacks and Native Americans kill them or sell them into slavery soemtiems hanging them in the streets skinning them alive, torturing them, a little bit on the Ku Klux Klan side, if not worse.

Broad generalizations anyone? I could just as well say "In the South, they'd brutally whip their slaves, and lynch any black they could get their hands on, and were the original Ku Klux Klan." Obviously these are broad generalizations not at all representing the South as a whole, but can you honestly say, with a straight face, that those things people from the North did were any more common than those I've posted here below?

I didn't say they occurred more often, they probably occurred at the same rate. and it would be "I've posted here above?" not "below" lol sorry I didn't understand what you were saying I was like? is he talking about the last paragraph or what? ....

I don't see how this is a valid point at all, when you have given no evidence to support it, and you simply want to discredit the North by portraying the Southern slaveowner to be the benevolent man while every Northerner is a brutal racist pig.[/QUOTE]
As I said, all my books except for HitchHikers Guide, and Wicked, are packed away right now, waiting to be moved in a week, I probably wont be able to open it and sort through the books for a few weeks after that. Then I got scheme thru the books so I can find the right ones. So between that and moving I think Moving wins. At any rate, The general stereotype is the same broad generalization that you wrote, and generally that is how the south is seen and it's not right. My point with attacking the Union was simply this. 'You can say all you want about the South, but your side wasn't much better'

Writing a line in a paper is a difference to how the country actually acts.

Probably the truest thing written on this thread.

I hate slavery

Well Slavery hates you too

I find Slavery disgusting, however, I can't help but realize the things slavery has brought the world. I think without slavery, the world would of advanced much slower(both threw tech and improvements) and with a lot less money. It would of been better to of never had it, but it became a necessary evil.


Thinking about it... Nixon was a better president than Lincoln, actually Nixon would of been known as one of the top 10 if it werent for Watergate. The guy did alot for the country and he's never credited for it. What's funny is how I hear people on TV and radio attack the President and say he's Nixon 3.0( usually claiming Reagan or GHWB were 2.0) when Nixon was pretty liberal in his day on many aspects, from Environmentalism to Civil Rights. And Nixon did win reelection by a landslide.. Now I wonder where we would be if Nixon won the first time he ran, and the mafia failed to vote the other guy in. There would of been a lower chance of Vietnam, there would of been no Watergate, chance that the Bay of Pigs would of been better handled, maybe Air Support would get there. things would of changed drastically and to be honest, it might of been better for the country, but thats my own opinion. I'd say JFK was better than Lincoln to, and I don't think JFK did anything great except the Cuban Missile Crises, and land Marylin Monroe, but again my opinion.

 

[Venger]

Wow, some guy is apologizing for slavery and Nixon, in the same post...

Slavery isn't responsible for the rapid advance of human kind, it isn't a necessary evil, these are the pretexts and justifications of a slaveowner. Slavery on any scale inevitably ruins a society, both at it's rotten moral core, but also robs any economy of monetary velocity as well as destroys the social fabric by evaporating the economy of job opportunities. Why hire someone, when you can buy a slave? What are those without work to do?

Nixon was a sham of a President, too fond of his own control, and paranoid of others. He is the kind of leader that will easily tend to despotism, and it led to his downfall. Price controls, impounding, massive bureaucracy, the guy was an imperial statist. There was nothing he and Washington couldn't make better. Shudder...

Venger

 

[Slobadog]

No you see slaves do all the necessary boring chores for you. Costs you very little as you don''t have to pay them. This frees up your spare time and money to go pursue other projects like science. Also you don't have to worry about them getting lured to go work somewhere else since they're in chains.

 

[meatwad4289]

Wow, some guy is apologizing for slavery and Nixon, in the same post...

Well to be fair the Nixon part was more towards the original topic of 'Whether or not Lincoln was the best President in the US' and i didn't apologize for Nixon.

Slavery isn't responsible for the rapid advance of human kind, it isn't a necessary evil, these are the pretexts and justifications of a slaveowner. Slavery on any scale inevitably ruins a society, both at it's rotten moral core, but also robs any economy of monetary velocity as well as destroys the social fabric by evaporating the economy of job opportunities. Why hire someone, when you can buy a slave? What are those without work to do?

Not responsible for the rapid advanced, however, through Slavery over thousands of years, technology advanced at a quicker rate. Lets say you and your friend are driving cross country, no traffic no lights, same car. He goes 40mph you go 45 mph. You'll get there sooner than he well, and when you start off you won't notice much difference, but you'll get there a lot sooner than her will. This is the same as Slavery, without the institution of slavery, We might be a decade behind, we might be a decade behind, we might be a century behind where we are today. When nations enslave other nations, they usually pick up a thing or two from the captured nation. This is one of the reasons Roman and Greek Cultures are closer than other cultures in the surrounding areas. In many cases, knowledge was passed from one nation to another through slaves. Some inventions were created to battle slavery, others to enhance it.

Slavery BECAME a necessary evil, after slavery became widely spread and popular idea it became necessary for some economies. Its much the same as Illegal immigrant labor becoming necessary on some farms, and construction, because the farmer had to compete with others using the same practices. Illegal immigrant labor isn't necessary yet, however, if it's not stopped I can see that in 50 years, any one not using illegal immigrants as wage slaves will fail, because they wont be able to sell goods at cheap prices.

Nixon was a sham of a President, too fond of his own control, and paranoid of others. He is the kind of leader that will easily tend to despotism, and it led to his downfall. Price controls, impounding, massive bureaucracy, the guy was an imperial statist. There was nothing he and Washington couldn't make better. Shudder...

Nixon was a great president. Although Paranoid, he was the kind of leader that would would adhere to the people. Nixon followed the people's wishes, against his best judgment, he pulled the troops out of Vietnam. He opened trade with China and Russia, convinced the Soviet Union to cut back on creating nuclear weapons. He issued wage and price controls to fight against inflation, created the SSI, EPA, OSHA. He turned federal land over to States for parks and recreational purposes, introduced the Philadelphia Plan (one of the first affirmative action plans, Affirmative Action was necessary back then.) He also increased Salaries of Federal employees. He approved Funding for the Space Shuttle Program. He created the U.S. Postal Service in it's current form(as a Government owned corporation)

Nixon is one of the most difficult President's to rate, becuase his greatness is overshadowed by his shortcomings. But in my opinion he was a Great President, certainly did more than Lincoln, however, Lincoln lacked the tech and the ability to do much of what Nixon did due to war.