Presidential Speeches,favorites?

[geeman]

Presidents make speeches to impress people and make points.What is your most memorable speech that you remember?

[uncas]

Can't think of any modern ones....so back to the books..

Gettysburg address...

If for no other reason .. Lincoln wrote it.

[geeman]

I wouldnt class it as a "favorite" But Lincoln said in a speech before the election this.
" I have no intention of forcing the south to do away with slavery"
Interesting speech considering what happened later.

[uncas]

geeman.. Actually this is true.. look at the actual wording of the Emancipation Proclamation.. only those slaves in Union held territory were freed...

[geeman]

On top of that Uncas,most people would be surprised to know that one of the 1st laws passed by the Confederate Congress was to OUTLAW the import of any more slaves from Africa.The south was in process of doing away with slavery (tho slow) at the time.

[uncas]

Well.... umm.. I think all they were doing is ratifying the 1808 law...forbidding the importation of slaves....Or was that the UK?
I know we passed one in there somewhere... umm.. google time...

googled... I was right.. went into effect.. Jan 1, 1808

[geeman]

At the time there were a large group of people North AND South that had decided that slavery was wrong.A lot of these people in the south were slave owners.The owners felt that slaves needed to be freed but they were against simply freeing them and walking away.WHat they wanted was a "trainning" period of sorts so the slaves could get jobs and survive on their own.
Most people including Lincoln felt both north and south that the black was an inferior race and wouldnt be able to handle free life.It was the excepted thinking at the time.

[uncas]

You are very correct.. Ya don't have to go any further than Washington and Jefferson...There is and was always the financial thing...

My ancestor was one of the first in Russia to free his serfs under Alexander 1st.. 1861... He did it but he killed himself financially...

[geeman]

Robert E LEE freed his slaves before the war,Lee was against slavery but felt he must defend his beloved home state OF Virginia.

[uncas]

Washington and Jefferson freed a portion of their slaves.. mostly in their wills....
But there was that financial consideration... If ya think about it, most soldiers in the Confederacy did not have slaves anyway.. It.. the war was over state's rights afterall.

[Popeye]

c'mon guys , Kennedy .. 'osk not wot your country can do for you ..'

[geeman]

It was financial, the north used slavery when there was a problem with getting enough labor to get things moving up north.Later things got better as far as labor was concerned,and the refreshed labor force objected to having to compete with slaves for "jobs".Part of the reason slavery was done away with up north,it was about money but not the way most people think it was.

[uncas]

Popeye.. Yes, there was that speech but did Kennedy write it? So many speeches are now written by staff members.. added to and subtracted from by the president... I would guess that Kennedy did write it but I'm not 100% sure...

[geeman]

Correct Uncas,the south was convinced that states rights would be eroded. They felt the country was based on states rights with very little interference from the govt.They felt that the slavery issue would only be the 1st step in doing away with states rights.Turns out they were right, only it was another 150 years or so until it proved true,,,,,

[geeman]

Popeye that was the 1st speech I thought of ,Kennedy's.I remember that speech ,watched it live on vivid black and white TV even.

[uncas]

geeman me too.. Of course we only got one chanel on the telly but I remember it... Also the debates in 60.

[Popeye]

" .. a chicken in every pot .. "

[geeman]

I remember watching the debates also.I was a huge fan of Camelot.I was in deep lust for Jackie,I thinkI was in the 6th grade at the time.I hated Nixon, felt he had shifty eyes,remember thinking he looked like a crook to me.

[uncas]

What's really sad.. is that if ya ask recent grads "edicated" at decent colleges a question about the causes of the Civil War, a large majority say "slavery.. of course"... I think this came out of a study done at Princeton....

[uncas]

Now there is a speech.. chat what have you..
Checkers....( of course he was only the potential VP then.. LOL)

[Larry P.]

Robert E LEE freed his slaves before the war,Lee was against slavery but felt he must defend his beloved home state OF Virginia.

Well there is a bit of revisionist history. Lee never owned mare than a few slaves personally prior to the death of his father in law. When his father in law died (circa 1856) Lee inherited 63 slaves, with the condition that they be freed with in five years. Lee also inherited many of his father in law's debts and realized that to pay them off he needed the slave labor to work Arlington. He attempted to find a trustworthy overseer to work the slaves. Being unable to find one he took a two year leave from the Army to personally work the slaves.

The slaves were unruly and hard to control because they believed they were to be freed immediately. Lee finally freed all of them in 1862. (after the start of the war).

[geeman]

Uncas, its true,most people were taught that slavery WAS the war.A couple of states during their secessions added comments in their secession papers that listed slavery, only because that was the pressure coming from the north.Those comments came to represent to people that slavery was the reason for the war.
A lot of people died,over an issue that was already dying in the south.The problem was the south wasnt doing way with slavery fast enough to suit what more knowledgeable people now would call radicals thinking.Radicals in the north made so much out of an issue that was already being delt with in the south, and forced the issue.It was very trying times.
One other thing here,appr 90% of the Africans bought and sent here were sent to the Islands and south america, not to the southern US.
Another point most people dont know is that there were slave owners,that were black,that bought and sold slaves.A lot of the Africans caught and sold as slaves were caught and sold by Black traders.

[huisjen]

I'd love to hear a good resignation speech about now.

Dan

[geeman]

In the north, a lot of "slaves" that were caught and sold to other countries were Native Americans.
After slavery was done away with in the north, northern ships and captains continued to sail back and forth trading in slaves.The war situation was most tragic,cooler heads may have been able to avert all the death and destruction,was the times I guess.
Lincoln favored sending the slaves BACK to Africa, he felt that blacks were not capable of handling free life.The south favored educating the blacks THEN freeing them.The north wanted them freed, but they didnt want them up north,several northern states went so far as to pass laws forbidding freed slaves from entering those states.

[huisjen]

You know: a fall-on-your-sword-from-five-stories-up kind of thing...

Dan

[BrianY]

Here's a web site that has the texts of the major speeches of the US presidents : http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/index.html

Licoln definitly is tops on the list. The Gettysburg Address is amazing. I also like his Second Inaugural in which he wonders if the Civil War is God's retribution for the national sin of slavery. The closing paragraph is classic:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Also - read Clinton's second inaugural address. It's about the best speech given by a President in the 20th century

[huisjen]

... One that implicates the VP and the whole cabinet, as well as a few more of the Republican page-turners on the hill....

Dan

[geeman]

Lincolns primary concern wasnt to abolish slavery, it was to keep the Union together.His personal opinion was that what the south did as far as slaves were concerned ,was the souths business.
The norths feelings were that the slaves had to be freed and RIGHT NOW.But they didnt want them up north because they would have been competing with the labor force already working.(The public)Hence "dont send the freed slaves up here"

[ccmanuals]

All of Martin Sheen's on the West Wing. :D

[Milo Christensen]

Johnson: "Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." (1968)

Nixon: "Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow." (1974)

Carter: "We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure." (1979)

We're awfully hard on our President's aren't we?

[geeman]

If the Shrub makes that speech , somebody else will have to write it,,,,,,,,

[rbgarr]

but a comment by Calvin Coolidge:

Confronted at a White House reception by a large, obviously self-satisfied Beacon Hill matron, Coolidge allowed his visitor to pump his arm mechanically while she gushed "Oh Mr. President, I'm from Boston."

"Yep," he shot back. "And you'll never get over it."

[geeman]

Gotta remember that one,,,,,,:rolleyes:

[geeman]

When the north did away with slavery , most slaves were sold to southern owners, the Northern slave owners wasnt willing to take the financial hit to abolish slavery.

[Keith Wilson]

This is terrible thread drift, but I can't just let it pass.

Geeman, you have it exactly backward. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in Confederate territory, not in slave-holding territory loyal to the union; here's the relevant passage (emphasis added).
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. Claiming that the reasons for souther secession was not slavery is revision of the most egregious sort. The north had many reasons for fighting, and slavery was not at the top of the list, at least in 1860. The South fought to defend their "right" hold slaves. Their own documents make that as clear as it is possible to make anything. Slaver was not something "added on" to the declarations of secession, it is their central principle. Here's a site with four of them:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm

I'd really recommend that you read them yourself. They consist of two things, defense of their legal right to secede and defense of slavery, in about equal parts. There's very little else. Here are a couple of quotes.

The second sentence of the Mississippi document, which mentions not one single reason for secession other than slavery:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. From the Texas declaration:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. And South Carolina:
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. The North may not have fought primarily to abolish slavery, but the South, according to their own words, most certainly fought primarily to defend it.

[uncas]

Coolidge again..
Sitting next to a matorn at dinner, she turned to the president and said. " I just bet the man on my right that I could get you to say more than two words."
The president looked at her and said.. "You lose!"

[uncas]

The C&Ps are interesting but my interpretation is different.. Slavery was an example used....I'm sure others could have been as well.

To me.. It was not the south defending slavery but the south saying they have the right to decide their own destiny, in this case, to have slaves or not, and this right should not be usurped by others because they disagree. Staes have rights....to do as they see fit... as long as it doesn't go against the constitution...

[geeman]

Keith, all that you posted is true.WHich is why I stated that a few of the southern states in those writtings mentioned slavery so forcefully.The MAIN reason the north was so agitated was slavery.The south felt that slavery would be only the 1st issue they would have to submit to.It was fear of losing their right to make their own decisions.Slavery only being the FIRST one.IS why they were so vocal in those writings.
Also remember the north also felt the black was inferior.that was the general feelings at time time , north AND south.Even Lincoln felt the black was an inferior race.It was the common thought at the time.Those writings though from the south WERE THE commonly HELD ATTITUDES at that time. North AND South.It is hard for us now to understand how anyone can think that way, but those were the attitudes of the time.North and South.If you cant find that information, maybe your not looking hard enough.No insult intended.

[Gonzalo]

His personal opinion was that what the south did as far as slaves were concerned ,was the souths business. Not quite accurate. Lincoln definately favored abolition of slavery, but believed that the Constitution prevented the Federal government from taking any action to abolish slavery in the states. The reason the Emancipation Proclamation was structured to free slaves only in areas under rebel control was to tie the Proclamation to his powers as commander-in-chief and also to his responsibility to defend the Constitution. Even so, many in the North as well as the South thought that the Proclamation changed the intent of the war from preservation of the Union to abolition of slavery. Evenutally, much Northern public opinion turned toward supporting this view favorably.

Lincoln definately believed, early on, that blacks should be resettled in Africa or the West Indies. He actually sponsored a resettlement of several hundred former slaves in one of the West Indies islands (I don't remember which one.) The attempt failed.

Frederick Douglass reported that Lincoln told him in their first meeting that he believed that the two races could not live together peacefully. He soon abandoned that idea after the magnitude of shipping and resettling several millions of blacks became clear.

Any interpretation that slavery was not the main issue leading to the Civil War is not well informed. Most, but of course not all, of the sectional rifts that eventually led to succession had to do with the expansion of slavery into the territories. Far from "mentioning" slavery in their articles of succession, most states declared that defense of their "institution" was the primary reason for succession, as did most of the political speeches and newspaper editorials leading up to succession. The only "states right" that was in dispute was the right to seccede, and most states made it clear that slavery was the reason they were secceding. (I see Keith has already made this point more thoroughly than I could.)

As for my favorite speech, Lincoln's second inaugural address. It makes clear Lincoln's view that slavery was the cause of the war.

[Gonzalo]

Slavery was an example used....I'm sure others could have been as well. Care to list any issues that were as contentious between North and South as expansion of slavery into the territories? There were certainly other sectional differences over tariffs and such things, but nothing led to seccession other than slavery.

[Keith Wilson]

Slavery was an example used....I'm sure others could have been as well.With the exception of some discussion of tax expenditures on lighthouses and aids to navigation on the Georgia document, there is no mention of any other issue than slavery. Yes, they thought of it as deciding their own destiny - and the destiny of their slaves, but of course they didn't count. Again. according to their own words, they fought to preserve their "right" to hold slaves. There is no other possible interpretation of what they said. Read the documents yourself, particularly the Mississippi declaration; they're not long.

[geeman]

Keith Lincolns Proclamation was never designed to abolish ALL slavery it was designed to free only slaves in occupied states.I thought that was what I posted, I'll reread and see if I posted in error.It was designed to put more pressure on the Confederates and also to placate the radicals in the north.

[Keith Wilson]

Lincoln's second inaugural address is perhaps worth posting in full:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

[Milo Christensen]

Give it up guys, Keith has all this stuff stashed on his hard drive from the 4 or 5 other times we debated this topic this year.

[geeman]

As I stated in an earlier post, slavery ,believe it or not was losing favor in the south also.But when put against the wall, the south feared losing their right to decide,this issue was thought AT THE TIME to be only the 1st issue,they greatly feared losing others as well in the future.That was the true issue,the territories was the primer that lit the fuse yes.

[geeman]

The south also felt that if they EXCEPTED joining the Union in the 1st place, they had to right to SECEDE also.They felt the Constitution gave states the right to secede.We tend to think in modern terms now, its so cut and dried to us, remember the thinking of the time.

[Keith Wilson]

Keith has all this stuff stashed on his hard drive from the 4 or 5 other times we debated this topic this year.Actually, I don't, Milo; I had to google the damn thing up again. It's rare in a historical argument that the original documents are so readily available and so very clear. Maybe I'll keep it for the next time it comes up. About the only thing I've kept from the WBF is from a couple of years ago when I weakened and let loose a truly inspired diatribe (if I must say so myself ;) ) against SamF.

[geeman]

Keith , if you look deep enough you will find much more information, the facts you post are the main excepted information .This information that you posted is the same information that is posted and taught in school for many years.None of your posts are in dispute,by me.However there is much more out there that makes the reasons clearer,its not as cut and dried as most of your posts indicate.

[Keith Wilson]

Well, I disagree, obviously. I think it's extremely clear, from the most direct of evidence: what the people at the time said were their reasons. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is absolutely right. I also think most attempts to show otherwise are defending a very bad cause. I could certainly be wrong , however; God knows it's happened often enough. If you have additional information or sources, feel free to post them.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Is it time for the Sherman photo ;)

FWIW Lincoln was a tall gawky pockmarked man, with no visual charisma. A virtual unknown when he came to make his first public speech at the Cooper Union in NYC. He awed the world with his words that day. His Gettysburg address written on a napkin succinctly put the Worst war in American history into poetic phrase. So short and concise by todays speech standards you can see how it fit on a napkin. But more than that, in few words he said so much. The speech is so small it is easy to C&P it here and read it aloud and hear the weight of his words.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

WOW :eek:

He along with Jefferson were probably the best writers and especially with Lincoln were some of the best orators in modern history.

As a fan of Camelot I also must give JFK credit for his Ask not What you can do speech.

The best speech above all others presidential or not has to be MLK's I Have A Dream Speech. I have that on my iPod. It's rhythm and words flow to a crescendo unsurpassed in any-other American speech.

[ishmael]

Lincoln's second inaugural is top shelf. I can just imagine him, with his high voice, speaking this to a country still at war with itself. You realize the only way the vast majority of people heard it, not like today, was in a newspaper transcript?

Roosevelt's, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I'd have to put that as the first modern presidential bully pulpit speech. It was broadcast by radio, and rallied a dispirited nation.

I'm rather fond of Jack Kennedy standing there, in a singlet in freezing weather, exhorting us to be more civically spirited.

Of all the presidents I have personal experience of, I think Jack was the last one who made an attempt at real oratory. Reagan had his moments, but Jack knew the power of the word, and tried to use it. Watching the Martin Luther King speech, his famous one out of Moses standing before the Lincoln monument. I have a dream. On TV. Jack turned to Bobby and said, "I don't agree with where he's going, but I admire his ability." (close paraphrase.)

[uncas]

I guess I kinda started this.... drift.. sorry...
And the link to Pres. speeches was interesting but my basic thought remains the same which is why I picked the Gettyburg Address. I know that Lincoln wrote it.. I'm really not sure whether the words spoken by more recent presidents were actually written by them....

I mean.. there have been rumors floating around for ages...that Kennedy duid not write Profiles in Courage.. I tend to lean toward his havoing done so but.....never seen a rough draft.. muchless one in his own handwriting.

[Gonzalo]

Lincoln's Greatest Speech : The Second Inaugural by Ronald C. White Jr.

Hard to believe such a fascinating book could be written about such a short speech. It is well worth reading.

I see on Amazon that there are several books on the Gettysburg Address and one on the Cooper Union Speech. I actually read the Garry Wills book on the Gettysburg Address, but it didn't measure up to the one on the Second Inaugural.

[ishmael]

From what I can gather, Jack was quite bright. Ted Sorensen definantly drafted his major speaches, but Jack worked them too. His book was mostly ghost written, with Jack's final approval and more than a little writing and input along the way. In strict terms, he didn't write it.

[uncas]

And what gets me is that Edward Everett spoke for two hours before Lincoln at Gettysburg and when ya ask most people who he was.. they ask "WHO?"

[geeman]

Jefferson Davis felt slavery was wrong, but felt that states rights superceded the Unions right to enforce its will ON the PEOPLE .
This is Lincolns statement at the debates of 1858:
I will say, then, that I am not in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not , nor have i ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negros,nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people,and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
In Sept 1859 Lincoln added;
Negro equality.FUDGE! How long in the govt of a GOD great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp,so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"
Lincoln said later:
Such seperation if effected at all, must be effected by colonization...WHat colonization most needs is a hearty will...Let us be brought to believe that it is morally right, and at all the same time favorable to,or at least not against ,our interests to transfer the African to his native clime,and we shall find a way to do it,however this great task may be."
New York representative Henry C. Murphy requested strong laws to punish anyone who would bring free people of color from the south into New York.These laws would be applied "against any who would bring the wretched beings to our Free States,there to taint the blood of the whites,or to destroy their own race by vicious courses"
So you see there were strong antiblack feelings on both side of the mason/dixon.That isnt taught in the schools.It doesnt play at all with the current thinking in terms of the south being the agressor in that war.
There is much information out there,if you choose to learn more.

[Gonzalo]

Jefferson Davis felt slavery was wrong What is your source for this? A quick google search reveals several statements by Davis that seem to show the opposite. In Wikipedia there is a statement that Davis was opposed in principle to seccession but it doesn't say anything about his opinions about slavery (other than that he was a slaveholder.)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

What is your source for this? A quick google search reveals several statements by Davis that seem to show the opposite. In Wikipedia there is a statement that Davis was opposed in principle to seccession but it doesn't say anything about his opinions about slavery (other than that he was a slaveholder.)

Psssst it's called revisionist history Gonzalo ;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

....

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

...

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

....

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

[Keith Wilson]

Andrew you beat me to Eisenhower's speech; good work. It's not great oratory, but has some excellent ideas.


So you see there were strong antiblack feelings on both sides of the mason/dixon.That isn't taught in the schools. It doesn't play at all with the current thinking in terms of the south being the aggressor in that war.Oh, I know about that. Trying to transplant modern attitudes into the middle of the 19th century is very foolish. OTOH believing in racial inequality and supporting slavery are two very different things; there are many degrees of injustice.

An interesting note: the word "miscegenation" was invented for a propaganda pamphlet, a hoax actually, published in New York before the election of 1864 (dirty election tactics have been around a long time).
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/miscegenation.html

The word miscegenation was used in an anonymous propaganda pamphlet printed in New York City in late 1863, entitled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. The pamphlet purported to be in favor of interbreeding of whites and blacks until the races were indistinguishably mixed, claiming that this was the goal of the United States Republican Party. The real authors were David Goodman Croly, managing editor of the New York World, a Democratic Party paper, and George Wakeman, a World reporter. The pamphlet soon was exposed as an attempt to discredit the Republicans, the Lincoln administration, and the abolitionist movement by exploiting the fears and racial biases common among whites. Nonetheless, this pamphlet and variations on it were reprinted widely in communities on both sides of the American Civil War by opponents of Republicans.And aggression isn't the issue. My point was abut the reason for Southern secession, which was mostly the defense of slavery .

[geeman]

History is history Joe.
"Revisionist" is a nice term to use when you dont choose to believe history that is not in complience with what we were taught in school.
My points here are not to say slavery wasnt wrong, it most surely was.My point is that there is history there that most of us dont know.
Most of us wasnt taught that the north was against slavery ,at the same time was greatly opposed to the freed "people of color " coming into their northern states.
I make no claim to alter history,however there are facts about history that SHOULD be pointed out .They tend to get "lost "
Can anyone find reference that shows how the north WANTED the black race to settle up north?

[Gonzalo]

As a native southerner whose great-great grandfather was a slave holder, I too was raised on the revisionism that "states rights" was the central issue and slavery was a peripheral concern. By the the 1950 and '60s hardly anyone would say (aloud) that slavery was anything but evil, so naturally we southerners wanted to find away to deny that our ancestors considered slavery a virtue and secceded to defend it.

But I've studied the War of Northern Agression a lot, and eventually I reluctantly concluded that "states rights" is a rationalization. Now, there were definately many reasons besides slavery why individual soldiers fought for their respective sides, but it is clear that the cause of the war was seccession and the cause of seccession was slavery. There just ain't no way around it, as we say in these parts.

Another recommendation for a good book: For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James McPherson.

[Gonzalo]

Can anyone find reference that shows how the north WANTED the black race to settle up north? How is that relevant to the question of slavery as a cause of the Civil War? I think it is clear that many, even Lincoln himself, believed the black race to be inferior, and that the races couldn't live peacefully together. That doesn't address a thing about the politics of slavery leading to seccession and thus to the war, which it certainly did.

[geeman]

We could use WW2 as an example.When war broke out (Pearl Harbor" we thought of the japanese as the dirty lil japs that were not civilized and were evil.It wasnt until later years that there were reasons THEY felt threatened ( real threats or not), and they started the war.They were still wrong but they felt they had to go to war.But we didnt know all those facts until later.

[geeman]

Your right Gonzo,its not relevent if you dont choose it to be.My points were that the thinking that is/was thought and taught to be prevelent in the south wasnt confined to the south.The same thinking reached across the borders.Nothing could justify the death and destruction very true.But we must take into account the publics thinking at the time.Reason gets lost in the heat of battle so to speak.None of us were taught that the north as well as the souths thinking was antiblack at the time.I think that IS revelent.

[ishmael]

Let's not run this into yet another referendum on the American Civil War. There've been plenty of threads about that.

And I agree, Andrew. Ike was tuned in. Not the best speaker, but listen to what he said. I put his farewell on the list.

[Gonzalo]

We could use WW2 as an example.When war broke out (Pearl Harbor" we thought of the japanese as the dirty lil japs that were not civilized and were evil.It wasnt until later years that there were reasons THEY felt threatened ( real threats or not), and they started the war.They were still wrong but they felt they had to go to war.But we didnt know all those facts until later. Again, I don't see the relevance of this. If you say there were other issues than slavery, what were they? What is the history that could support that they were more significant in leading to seccession than the single issue claimed by the seccessionists themselves?

I don't think there are any such issues, but please name any if you can.

[geeman]

Gonzo, go back and read the entire thread,those issues were covered very early in the thread.You are focusing only on the slavery issue because thats the only issue you see as revelent.There were others, none of which justified slavery, but AT THE TIME they WERE relevent.

[uncas]

Well I'm mostly Yankee with at least 40% southern mixed in.. Guess I have people on both sides.. No, the yanks didn't have slaves but I suspect the southern contingent did have a few.. not a plantation though..
So.. the yankee side.. Ties to the Armistad.. sothern side.. ties to the war... That's all I know.. and all I'll write...

[Keith Wilson]

You are focusing only on the slavery issue because thats the only issue you see as relevant. There were others, none of which justified slavery, but AT THE TIME they WERE relevant.OK, fair enough. So what were the other issues? How do you know they were important to the people at the time? Why weren't they mentioned in the Declarations of Secession?

[geeman]

Keith as I mentioned earlier,the radical abolishionists were coming on so strong, the southern states feared they would be crushed financially by possible laws that would be unfavorable to the south,not slavery laws but tax,etc.The south greatly feared these issues and felt the south would be singled out by the northerns states.These issues had nothing to do with slavery but were felt revelent at the time.And then, the slavery issue entered the picture.After about 1830 when the north started doing away with slavery because the norths labor problem had been sorted out and there were enough whites to do the work focus went to the south, and its evil defense of slavery.Slavery was ok when the north needed it to get the job done, but when the south was too slow ( and it was) in abolishing slavery , suddenly the south was evil.There is much more to the history here then we were taught,thats my point, not to justify slavery.

[John of Phoenix]

Be afraid, be very afraid.


What to do to prepare for a chemical or biological attack -

Assemble a disaster supply kit and be sure to include:
Battery-powered commercial radio with extra batteries.
Non-perishable food and drinking water.
Roll of duct tape and scissors.
Plastic for doors, windows and vents for the room in which you will shelter in place—this should be an internal room where you can block out air that may contain hazardous chemical or biological agents. To save critical time during an emergency, sheeting should be pre-measured and cut for each opening.
First aid kit.
Sanitation supplies including soap, water and bleach.


Ridge said his department will launch a "Ready Campaign" on Wednesday, explaining what Americans need to do to prepare for the possibility of a terrorist attack. He dismissed suggestions that the administration had unnecessarily scared people this week.

"While your government is doing everything it can to prevent an attack, citizens also should know what to do," Ridge said. "Because in the end, being prepared, knowing what to do, can and will save lives."

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

geeman,
Here we go again.
I laid this all out once before but I'll do it one more time.
The impetus behind secession was the desire to extend slavery into the new lands being opened in the West.
The wealth of a slave holder was in his slaves not his land. In a land like colonial America there seemed to always be virgin land available on the horizon. So the most profitable practice of slavery was to move slaves on to virgin land , have them clear it and plant it, then move farther westward when that land played out. This was the practice from well back in the colonia era.
At the time of the civil War the southern states from the original colonies were bastions of played out land. Lee's beloved Virginia was so encumberd with used up land that it's most profitable industry became the breeding of slaves.
Slavery could only continue to make big profits as long as slavery was free to go where the good ground was. But, the anti-slavery sentiments up north were putting a crimp in slavery's ability to go westward. When one new state allowed slaves the one next door barred them. Slave holders were seeing an ever diminishing pot of land to make money on. The biggest slave holders in the South were also the heads of the wealthiest families in America. These folks were not going to go down without a fight. And being the leadership in southern society meant they could easily enlist their unlettered bretheren in the fight with slogans and banners and other propaganda.
Even if the South won the war it was faced with a western horizon filled with "bad" lands. Lands that were already cleared because the Almighty made sure the rains never came and the wind always blew. Slavery as a profit making industry was doomed. The war just advanced the day of reckoning.




http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/buttons/reply.gif (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1293357)
Page 2 of 2< (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=49701&highlight=confederate+states)1 (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=49701&highlight=confederate+states)2http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/misc/menu_open.gif

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.

But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit.

Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant.

While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

[Milo Christensen]

Not presidential, but still a prime specimen of the wordsmith's art...


...carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

[Gonzalo]

How about this one?
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. The emphasis is mine. The words are George Washington's.

[Bruce Hooke]

How about this one? The emphasis is mine. The words are George Washington's.

Very interesting. We still see what Washington warned about in many parts of the world. Iraq is a prime example. It is very hard to have a democracy when the people within that democracy identify themselves first as a member of some sub-group and second as a member of the state as a whole. While political parties have certainly created problems in the US, what holds us together is in part the fact that in the end most people see themselves first as US citizens by a wide margin and then only secondarily affiliate themselves with many sub-groups based on their religion, the state they live in or were born in, their political views, and so on.

[uncas]

Bruce.. that comment about the US you made sounds like the problems at least some of them, we have in Iraq.. but there it is religion first....

[Bruce Hooke]

My point exactly. Very similar problems plague many of the African countries. Partly this goes back to it being a bad idea to draw national boundaries that ignore cultural and ethnic boundaries. I came across a report on a study that actually showed that countries with lots of straight and thus likely abritrarily drawn borders were more likely to have social strife and similar problems than countries with irregular boundaries.

We are lucky here in the US that most people do NOT first identifiy themselves by political party!

[Wild Wassa]

My favourite Presidential speech 'of all time' will be the final speech written by puppet masters, that the evil criminal, George W. Bush makes ... when he finally leaves office. Good riddens to the puppet.

I hope he has one more speech to make after that though ... in his defence at the Hague. Take the bastard down.

Warren.

[ishmael]

Back to Coolidge. A man of few words, renowned as such, he was confronted at a dinner by a reporter or some such hanger on. The reporter said, "I've got a bet with my friends I can make you say more that two words." Coolidge replied, "You lose."

Not to hark back to Coolidge, but I do think WW II ruined the US in some very signifigant ways. Our way, our inspiration, is not to be this quasi-empire we've become. I think we were much better before this happened, and we were more isolationist. Not completely isolationist, but an island of semi-sanity that people wanted to come to because of it. Since WW II we've incorportated a national security state, including all the abuses. Before WW II we just wanted to be left alone, and the president was a relatively minor figure.

Two cents.

[uncas]

ISH! read previous posts.. already covered... LOL....well, basically.. the names have changed to protect the innocent...

[Nicholas Carey]

geeman.. Actually this is true.. look at the actual wording of the Emancipation Proclamation.. only those slaves in Union held territory were freed...Au contraire...Only slaves in "states or designated parts of states" in rebellion against the United States were "freed". Here's the document in question:
January 1, 1863

By the President of the United States of America: A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
.
.
.

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States...do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
.
.
.
If you take a look at Union lines as of January 1, 1863, you'll notice that the only places where slaves weren't freed were in those places where the rebellion was effectively over, having been occupied by Union forces.

You'll notice West Virginia was excluded. They seceded from Virginia following Virginia's secession from the Union (naming themselves Augusta) and applied to rejoing the United States. They were [provisionally] taken back as "West Virginia" -- there's a quiz later :D

West Virginia became a new slave-holding Union state on 20 June 1863. [after the war, Virginia repealed the act of secession and tried to re-annex West Virginia. West Virginia's status wasn't actually settled until 1871. But I digress :D]

Likewise Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were all excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was legal in all these states, but they were not in "open rebellion" -- they hadn't seceded from the Union.

Similarly, following the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was still legal in the territories of Kansas, Nebraska and Utah:

http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/images/map_10_a.gif

The Emancipation Proclamation made nice theater, but it had little actual effect until Union Armies occupied slave-holding areas.

[uncas]

Nicholas.. Umm.. Thanks for the correction... after I posted I double checked but didn't correct myself.. figured someone else would..
The bottom line is, since the south was in rebellion, freeing the slaves in territory not held by the Union was just a political move... A good one... though....