RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death'

RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/26/2009 5:09:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub For a guy who graduated fom the Naval Academy, Jimmy Carter had no ability to lead, no ability to instill pride, no ability to understand the pain people were suffering during his time at the helm when we all lived with a "misery index" suffering from both high inflation and obscene interest rates. To moral a man? Possibly, but I have no idea what Carter did or still does in the shadows. He was a good man over his head in the job...a man who was elected becasue people wanted "change". For Carter to write that slavery would have ended in time might be correct but certainly not a good thing if you were a slave in 1865...or the children of slaves in 1900, grandchildren of slaves in 1920..or great, great greandchildren of slaves in 2009. It's a silly arguement for the man to make, but pure Jimmy Carter. Let the old guy talk and write what he would like. Very few people care about what he has to say...and he can't hurt anyone...anymore. Well one does not become a nuke sub commander without an ability to lead. One does not get Pershing II missiles installed on the ground in Europe...without an ability to lead other countries in that direction. One does not get what turns into a lasting peace treaty between Egypt and Israel without being a leader. I thought 'feeling your (our) pain' was what was WRONG with pres. Clinton's policies. (now we feel walls street's pain) Finally, Carter is WRONG because Lincoln didn't start the war. AFTER he was elected but BEFORE even taking office, I think it was 6 states seceded from the union and threatened federal property and establishment...almost everywhere in the south. The south fired the first shot and Lincoln vowed to protect all federal installations. There's your war. Also it is specious to suggest that slavery would have died off as exemplified by the fact that the last human being sold as chattel occured in 1969, 100 years later.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/28/2009 3:26:29 AM)
remembering my old US history class....i believe the problem was each new state had to have a balance, For every free state entering the Union the south wanted a new slave state. So slavery continued as the nation grew. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Former President Jimmie Carter comments in a new Lincoln book:In Lincoln's Hand:His Original Manuscript's With Commentary By Distinguished Americans. Carter comments on a passage in which Lincoln wrote"I am almost ready to say this is probably true-that god wills this contest,and wills that itshall not end yet" Carter found the statement troubling stating"He (Lincoln)ignores the fact that the tragic combat might have been avoided altogether,and that the leaders of both sides,overwhelmingll Christian,were violating a basic premise of their belief as followers of the Prince of Peace."He concluded with "a legitimate question for historians is how soon the blight of slavery would have been terminated peacefully in America,as in Great Britain and other civilized societies". Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery altogether in 1833....by 1861 America had not followed suit.How much longer would this immoral institution have gone on in America?Is this just further proof that Former President Carter was and is too moral a man for the office he once occupied?Is there any evil in this world this man would see as worth the scourge of war....or does he beleive one can pray their way through anything?

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/28/2009 10:13:56 AM)
Your memories are wrong or incomplete or both.Please see the Missouri Compromise of 1820....and The Compromise of 1850 which dealt with the new territories acquired as a result of the then recent war with Mexico.... While each of these Compromise's sought to placate the south by adressing the need for balance...they served to do nothing save put off the coming conflict for another day....Kansas and Missouri both experienced internecine warfare as proslave and free state forces battled for supremacy prior to statehood. While Lincoln had pledged no attempt to abridge the rights of slave holders where it allready existed....he was equally adament that he found the institution immoral and did not beleive it should be allowed to spread to the new territories.Hence the south's displeasure at his election.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

1.171875E-02