| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
edalven
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 37
|
 Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: Eli 5/11 |
 |
|
| SeraphinaPyle wrote: |
| At the point of Lincoln's inauguration, just how different were the lifestyles of the people of the North and South?. |
I'm going to tweak your question just a little bit...
I am quite biased, and I used to think of this issue in black and white, as it were:
The South had been built entirely on the backs of Black slaves. People who could afford slaves lived in huge estates and comprised most of the government, whereas those who did not own slaves had very little influence, but could vent their anger at slaves by being overseers. My preconceived notion of the south was one of rampant injustice. I felt it was selfish of the Southern states to start a war because the ruling white class would actually have to start working for a change. I thought that the North had the moral high ground, that slavery was wrong in every way, and they were justified to do whatever was necessary to end it.
As we look at the issue more closely, My views have shifted. Like all of history, the Civil War was a complicated, multifaceted issue. There was no clear "good guy" or "bad guy;" instead it was the lesser of two evils. What seems to occur more often than anything else is stubbornness and self-interest. Humans are creatures of habit, and I think that Americans on both sides lived in their own different dynamics, and never experienced the other. This led to the inability of anyone to truly sympathize and come to some agreement. A bloody war to the end was inevitable. I think this relates back to my earlier point about regional views dividing the nation.
I hope that answers your question, at least somewhat.
My questions are:
-Was Lincoln always the white knight that we think of him as today? Moreover; Did he go too far when he declared Martial Law in Maryland?
In the middle of page 283, it says "[Republican] party leaders worked hard to portray themselves as 'the white man's party' rather than 'black Republicans' as their opponents contemptuously called them."
-Almost 200 years later, did they do too good of a job?
-Why did Republicans and Democrats hail from the opposite regions of the nation in the 1800s than they typically do today; what caused this change?
-Did their values change or remain the same?
-Because it says the Republican Party was founded by passionate abolitionists, what was their motivation; morality or self-interest?
Last edited by edalven on Wed May 12, 2010 9:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Free Forum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annie C
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reply to "Why did Kentucky's militia choose to split into two factions?"
I think the question relates to where Kentucky locates, and since it's a slave state but still remain in Union, there probably have two different political aspect to remain the situation. (as a slave state and be in the Union.) Thus, the Kentucky's militia splitted into two faction.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dokim
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why Lincoln didn't interfere with slavery in existing states?
why he gave up to change pro slave states to anti slave state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hkwon
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have a question about a fight at Sumter Fort, which is a starting point of civil war. Did South Carolina secede from the Union? Of course, did the Union have to leave Sumter Fort? What is the purpose of the Union? Were they willing to get the Confederacy mad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kandice
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you had the opportunity to vote for a political candidate in 1860, which one would you have voted for and why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kandice
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dokim wrote: |
Why Lincoln didn't interfere with slavery in existing states?
why he gave up to change pro slave states to anti slave state? |
A part of me feels as though Lincoln wanted to make change without upsetting the South! However, I think he gave up because he felt as though it wasn't worth fighting for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sarahislahf
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Would the proposed extension of the Missouri Compromise line into the west (by Crittenden) have staved off war? Would it have changed what happened in the following years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sarahislahf
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maddy.King wrote: |
| Even after seceding from the Union, why did South Caroline find the need to begin the battle at Fort Sumner? Even after getting what they wanted. |
The Union was looming over them, and they weren't willing to just let them secede easily. While Lincoln said it would necessitate no bloodshed, from the election onwards he stressed that secession wouldn't be tolerated. The South Carolina officials seized two federal forts and the arsenal in Charleston, and the federal troops responded by moving to Fort Sumter to be defended at all costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaehyouk
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why government wasn't able to control and clear out the situation?
did the government have the power to control all the
states in U.S? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abumgardner
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If disunion took place, what would have happened to leaders suchas Douglas, who are Northerners, yet still have Southern/Conservative Ideals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YUJIA
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Will the Confederate States of America be a better country than the United States if there were not a civil war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zaronson
Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This might be a really stupid question but i just forget, The Know Nothings, a group of former Whigs, why are they called the Know Nothings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Free Forum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
