|
xFrockx



Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 14 hours
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Redstorm]
#7790243 - 12/22/07 06:59 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
While this does show that Abraham Lincoln didn't want to fight the war for slavery, it says nothing about the public opinion of the time.
Quote:
In the period leading up to the Civil War, the future of slavery became the dominant political issue in the United States. "Runaway slaves, underground railway stations, masters and men tracking negroes, the occasional capture of a man or woman to be taken back to the South, trials of fugitives — all the features common in those years particularly in the States bordering on bond territory Lincoln saw," Lincoln biographer Ida Tarbell wrote. "It was not until 1844-45, however that the matter became an important element in his political life. Heretofore it had been a moral question only, now, however, the annexation of Texas made it a political one. It became necessary that every politician and voter decide whether the new territory should be bond or free. The abolitionists or Liberty party grew rapidly in Illinois. Lincoln found himself obliged not only to meet Democratic arguments, but the abolition theories and convictions."
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=4&subjectID=2
edit: more on how what Lincon said didn't reflect the feelings of the time:
"The reference to Lovejoy's murder was enigmatic. "Why did Lincoln not speak out more forthrightly?" asked Paul Simon in Lincoln's Preparation for Greatness: The Illinois Legislative Years. He raised three possible reasons:
1. Lincoln's thinking was still maturing on the whole question of slavery, and Lincoln did not detail his ideas before he had come to some solid conclusions."
2. In the protest he had signed with Dan Stone in the [Illinois] House a few months earlier, Lincoln had already taken an unpopular stand against slavery. By opposing mob violence and mentioned the McIntosh case, he stood on the side of law and order without being charged with being an Abolitionist, which he was not. Too forthright a statement might offend public opinion.
3. Lovejoy's extreme religious views, with his attacks on various denominations, were not in keeping with Lincoln's convictions.
4. But while conceding the preceding points, it does not appear too difficult to speak out against mob action in the Lovejoy case and still not be associated with the Abolitionists, with Lovejoy's religious views, or arouse much public opposition. A fourth possibility strong suggests itself. Lincoln was not without political ambition and did not want to alienate some of Lovejoy's influential opponents who were Lincoln's friends and potential supporters of his political aspirations. He felt so strongly on the subject that he had to speak out, but wanted to do this without stepping on powerful toes. He simply temporized for political reasons."
Edited by xFrockx (12/22/07 07:05 PM)
|
xFrockx



Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 14 hours
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: johnm214]
#7790262 - 12/22/07 07:09 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You all may disagree, but I believe that what matters is the reason the public fought the civil war, and I can confidently say that the people in the South weren't fighting to preserve the union . At least half of the combatants assuredly had slavery (and tarrifs to a lesser extent) in mind. The northern government wanted to preserve the union to preserve its recourses, but the people in the north ultimately weren't going to tolerate a slave-holding south if the union did unite. Slavery had to end for the union to unite again, and thus it was the pivotal issue.
Edited by xFrockx (12/22/07 07:10 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Seuss]
#7790572 - 12/22/07 09:30 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > This is the popular "alternative history" that people spout off, but not the true one.
I did quite a lot of research into the subject for my term paper for modern history in college. I went into the project with your position and came out with what I posted above.
Funny, the exact opposite happened to me. I did an essay in High School defending the South's side for the Civil War, and came out realizing just how much their secession had to do with slavery. People will often bring up the issue of tariffs, but those tariffs were basically opposed because they hurt the slave economy. Also, despite Lincoln's statements about wanting to preserve the union, a look at other statements of his will clearly illustrate that he was an abolitionist.
--------------------
|
fantastical
Strangler!
Registered: 11/18/07
Posts: 89
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: johnm214]
#7792091 - 12/23/07 10:49 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
This is crazy, congradulations to the Lakota though, I am hopeful that this will help end a lot of the racism that they face. So are these Peyote aboriginals? And if so, I really wonder what their policies regarding cacti will be, if it is a religous sacrament, maybe they will only keep it for their church, but maybe they will be smart and grow it themselves, which would be another product for them to make some profit off. Hopefully they will allow visitors to take part in their sacraments. Has anyone in the USA heard anything about this on like national news or anything?
|
kidaihuan
First Growery Ban



Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 3,173
Loc: Shanghai, China
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: fantastical]
#7792109 - 12/23/07 10:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The US will have some sanctions or something, or won't provide visas to them. They'll get fucked over somehow.
The Gov. should just let them govern themselves instead. New treaty needed!
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: kidaihuan]
#7792160 - 12/23/07 11:11 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
actually... if the us government did that it would force the lakota to be self sufficient again
that might be a good thing for the lakota indians
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: fantastical]
#7794578 - 12/24/07 01:27 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fantastical said: So are these Peyote aboriginals?
No, the Lakota Sioux are Native Americans of the Great Plains, whereas peyote is a sacrament of the Southwest. It may be possible, of course, that peyote made its way up into the Great Plains through trade, but this may or may not be the case, as I'm sure there is history and archaeological research that would leave that potential open, or close it off.
The Sioux Native Americans have been pretty prominent in the history of this country. Surely they had psychoactive substances that they used in the pursuit of their understanding of reality and their spirituality. The Sioux were buffalo hunters, and lived in tipis, so they could follow the buffalo as they migrated around. 
Living in a tipi is really cool, my dad needs to get a new canopy for his. These dudes lived out harsh, harsh winters on the Great Plains in these things, so we're talking capable shelter. It really makes you question how we have to live in order to survive. They have a rich culture and history, and its tragic how our invasion of their lands overwhelmed them and nearly destroyed them.
They have this right more than anyone else, and I don't think the federal government is in that much of a position to prevent it from happening.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fantastical
Strangler!
Registered: 11/18/07
Posts: 89
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7795014 - 12/24/07 09:18 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh, thanks I am not very familiar with american issues. However, don't all natives have the right to the native american church, and therefor the right for peyote. If so, even if it doesnt grow there naturally, they should be able to grow and harvest it if they want to (they will be governing themselves), I bet it would be a pretty lucrative industry, look at other legal drugs like coffee, smokes, or booze, or illegal ones like coke or chronic, there always will be a market, they should take advantage of it. This seems like it should be a bigger issue than it is, is the media/government trying to keep this quiet? If other countries do not recognize them, then they are not a real country. Maybe they are drafting new treaties that are fair? But the natives always seem to get screwed, they should just break away IMO. Oh and I know that peyote is sacred to them, but in other places other drugs are sacred, like booze and weed in India but non religious people still consume, so I don't think that would be disrespectful. It is also fucked up how they are allowd peyote but no one else is, if your all citizens of a country you should have equal rights.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: fantastical]
#7795499 - 12/24/07 12:31 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:49 PM)
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:the Lakota have been confined to among the poorest land
They are not allowed to move? They should have the right to move to a prosperous city within the US.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: DieCommie]
#7796148 - 12/24/07 04:39 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:49 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
Wait a minute. You are claiming they don't have a right to move to a prosperous city within the US?
Phred
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Phred]
#7796182 - 12/24/07 04:53 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:50 PM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: DieCommie]
#7796205 - 12/24/07 05:07 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:50 PM)
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic



Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: xFrockx]
#7796542 - 12/24/07 08:28 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm confused about something. Based on the pictures the OP posted the Lakota territory looks HUGE, but based on the Wikipedia article on Indian reservations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
the territory looks much smaller. What's the deal?
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: freddurgan]
#7796576 - 12/24/07 08:45 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:51 PM)
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic



Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
|
So then is Lakota claiming to be taking that huge piece of land back? Or just their current small pieces. I'm not sure where the OP got the pics but they seem like a far fetched idea if that's the case.
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: freddurgan]
#7796602 - 12/24/07 08:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:52 PM)
|
derx
who run it



Registered: 05/29/03
Posts: 2,459
Loc: dx/dt
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
Quote:
Disco Cat said:

if i'm not mistaken does that mean that mount rushmore was built on an indian reservation? are they going to claim mount rushmore as theirs?
yes you dumb ass, mt rushmore was built on indian fucking land to kinda say "IN YOUR FACE, BITCH NIGGAZ"
-------------------- better living through chemistry OVERGROW the government!! it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom, ok, thats what it is.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: derx]
#7796760 - 12/24/07 09:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Is the shitty attitude necessary?
|
|