[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

I was just wanting some of your alls opinions on this. How can i make it better? It is for my Oral interpretation class and begins with an selection from Langston Hughes's Let America Be America Again.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

" The day was September Eleventh 2001, an ordinary day that has been sketched into ever Americans mind. On that day our way of life, our very freedom came under attack by a terroristic party that had every intention of shattering our great nation. Now seven years later our country and the world have been affected by that shameless attack. On that day our great nation began a transisiton of freedom to solitary confiment. Once a land of liberation from communism, a land where one could be themselves and nothing more, became a land with a watchful eye in every corner of the world. We now as America are liberators, attempting to free those binded by their nations chains. With gas prices now declining, a redemition in the 2008 election, lets shout from the hill tops of Kentucky, from the Valley's of Arizona and the plains of Kansas to allow, - 'Let America Be America Again by Langston Hughes...."

[thecavemaster]

I think Langston Hughes is using a bit of sarcasm in this poem. The other immigrants listed came to seek out a better opportunity; the "black African" was forcibly taken and shackled in the chains of slavery. I don't think America was a "homeland for the free" to Kunta Kinte (Roots) and his kin.

[Beetle01]

I think Langston Hughes is using a bit of sarcasm in this poem. The other immigrants listed came to seek out a better opportunity; the "black African" was forcibly taken and shackled in the chains of slavery. I don't think America was a "homeland for the free" to Kunta Kinte (Roots) and his kin.

While not initially. The only country to ever fight a civil war to abolish slavery would say different.

[thecavemaster]

While not initially. The only country to ever fight a civil war to abolish slavery would say different.

I am sure that those "Black Africans" who were abducted and sold as human chattel would have taken great comfort for those couple hundred years before the Civil War...and perhaps their ancestors who lived under Jim Crow laws, lived under juries who acquited those who murdered their family members. Abraham Lincoln was a great man. He believed in the principles of a great country...what your response has to actually do with the Langston Hughes poem is a mystery.

[Beetle01]

Hopefully they are angered with Obama also. His family was Kenyan slave traders.

[Beetle01]

LOL @ you thinking Lincoln wanted to free the slaves for any reason other than power for the northern states.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.j...lin04.html

[Beetle01]

It is a total myth that the Civil war was fought over slavery.

[thecavemaster]

It is a total myth that the Civil war was fought over slavery.

"This country cannot stand half slave and half free." Now, Lincoln may have desired to preserve the union more than he desired to end slavery, but, when a young man, he witnessed a slave auction and said to an acquaintance, "If I ever get a chance, I'm going to hit that hard"... meaning the slave trade/slavery.

[DevilsWin]

I was just wanting some of your alls opinions on this. How can i make it better? It is for my Oral interpretation class and begins with an selection from Langston Hughes's Let America Be America Again.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

" The day was September Eleventh 2001, an ordinary day that has been sketched into ever Americans mind. On that day our way of life, our very freedom came under attack by a terroristic party that had every intention of shattering our great nation. Now seven years later our country and the world have been affected by that shameless attack. On that day our great nation began a transisiton of freedom to solitary confiment. Once a land of liberation from communism, a land where one could be themselves and nothing more, became a land with a watchful eye in every corner of the world. We now as America are liberators, attempting to free those binded by their nations chains. With gas prices now declining, a redemition in the 2008 election, lets shout from the hill tops of Kentucky, from the Valley's of Arizona and the plains of Kansas to allow, - 'Let America Be America Again by Langston Hughes...."

You left out the part about America only helping countries that have Oil or White Skin.

[Beetle01]

"This country cannot stand half slave and half free." Now, Lincoln may have desired to preserve the union more than he desired to end slavery, but, when a young man, he witnessed a slave auction and said to an acquaintance, "If I ever get a chance, I'm going to hit that hard"... meaning the slave trade/slavery.

Obviously you didn't read the article. How does anyone know what he said when he was a young kid?

[DevilsWin]

Obviously you didn't read the article. How does anyone know what he said when he was a young kid?

He has memoirs, and btw history is an interesting subject if you ever bothered to read it for yourself you might learn something.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

You left out the part about America only helping countries that have Oil or White Skin.

Yes yes that shall be added thank you kind sir lol

[thecavemaster]

Obviously you didn't read the article. How does anyone know what he said when he was a young kid?

The article you posted, in the last paragraphs, deals with those who disagree with the main point of the article. People of Lincoln's day compiled records, were interested in biography. Do you really think Lincoln was morally indifferent to slavery? Is this the belief you base your opinion upon?

[Beetle01]

The article you posted, in the last paragraphs, deals with those who disagree with the main point of the article. People of Lincoln's day compiled records, were interested in biography. Do you really think Lincoln was morally indifferent to slavery? Is this the belief you base your opinion upon?

Lincoln only cared to end slavery to end southern prosperity in the cotton industry. He constantly referred to blacks as "N's" in public speeches, even as president. He wanted blacks to be banned from moving into the new west. He truthfully favored shipping them back to Africa.
Once again the civil war was not over slavery it was a war between the industrial north and the cotton states. Note that 5 slave states fought for the north. With the expansion of the west, the southern states wanted to expand slavery into those states, while the northern states opposed it, fearing they would lose more power. Lincoln did oppose the expansion of slavery to these new territiories. However, he wanted to keep blacks out of those areas altogether.

So yes I do believe Lincoln was indifferent to slavery as a practice. The union invasion was a clear violation of the consitution. Every state has the right to secceed. Hopefully Oklahoma does soon, allowing a few other states, maybe Kentucky if we are lucky to do the same.

[DevilsWin]

Lincoln only cared to end slavery to end southern prosperity in the cotton industry. He constantly referred to blacks as "N's" in public speeches, even as president. He wanted blacks to be banned from moving into the new west. He truthfully favored shipping them back to Africa.
Once again the civil war was not over slavery it was a war between the industrial north and the cotton states. Note that 5 slave states fought for the north. With the expansion of the west, the southern states wanted to expand slavery into those states, while the northern states opposed it, fearing they would lose more power. Lincoln did oppose the expansion of slavery to these new territiories. However, he wanted to keep blacks out of those areas altogether.

So yes I do believe Lincoln was indifferent to slavery as a practice. The union invasion was a clear violation of the consitution. Every state has the right to secceed. Hopefully Oklahoma does soon, allowing a few other states, maybe Kentucky if we are lucky to do the same.

OK you are now officially "Out There" politically and I see no reason to further debate someone with these kinds of views. Geez man!

[Beetle01]

In what way am I out there? Are you saying the federal government isn't infringing on states rights? Are you saying that this is not in total violation of the basis of our constitution? The only way for these federal policy makers to change their ways is for the states and the people of each and every state to take their future into their own hands. Nothing permanent, but we must curtail the growth of big government. Which will only increase if Obama is elected. Do not be surprised if Oklahoma leads the way sooner than later.

[thecavemaster]

Lincoln only cared to end slavery to end southern prosperity in the cotton industry. He constantly referred to blacks as "N's" in public speeches, even as president. He wanted blacks to be banned from moving into the new west. He truthfully favored shipping them back to Africa.
Once again the civil war was not over slavery it was a war between the industrial north and the cotton states. Note that 5 slave states fought for the north. With the expansion of the west, the southern states wanted to expand slavery into those states, while the northern states opposed it, fearing they would lose more power. Lincoln did oppose the expansion of slavery to these new territiories. However, he wanted to keep blacks out of those areas altogether.

So yes I do believe Lincoln was indifferent to slavery as a practice. The union invasion was a clear violation of the consitution. Every state has the right to secceed. Hopefully Oklahoma does soon, allowing a few other states, maybe Kentucky if we are lucky to do the same.

It seems to me that Carl Sandberg and Stephen Oates are far better biographers of Lincoln than whatever sources you are reading...the overwhelming weight of authentic scholarship suggests Lincoln was, yes, a man of him time, but also a man way ahead of his time. Threats "foreign and domestic" are within federal government sovereignty. I think enslaving other human beings within US territory is perhaps a domestic threat.

[Beetle01]

It seems to me that Carl Sandberg and Stephen Oates are far better biographers of Lincoln than whatever sources you are reading...the overwhelming weight of authentic scholarship suggests Lincoln was, yes, a man of him time, but also a man way ahead of his time. Threats "foreign and domestic" are within federal government sovereignty. I think enslaving other human beings within US territory is perhaps a domestic threat.

You are going to think w/e you think. No matter what the facts say.

So are you saying the civil war was fought over slavery?

[thecavemaster]

You are going to think w/e you think. No matter what the facts say.

So are you saying the civil war was fought over slavery?

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free-- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve." A. Lincoln, Dec. 1, 1862, State of Union address to Congress.

The Civil War for Lincoln, I think, was an anguishing decision to preserve the Union. These were hot-headed times. Just as today, individual men and women had to make concessions to the Party Platform to get nominated. Lincoln, the man, hated slavery. Lincoln the politican was often a pragmatist. Your facts are colored by hatred of whoever you deem the enemy to be.

[Beetle01]

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free-- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve." A. Lincoln, Dec. 1, 1862, State of Union address to Congress.

The Civil War for Lincoln, I think, was an anguishing decision to preserve the Union. These were hot-headed times. Just as today, individual men and women had to make concessions to the Party Platform to get nominated. Lincoln, the man, hated slavery. Lincoln the politican was often a pragmatist. Your facts are colored by hatred of whoever you deem the enemy to be.

That quote is just Lincoln trying to keep up motivation for a fight with the South. Which at that time was not going very well. Lincoln may not have been a fan of slavery. I have never argued that he was. He was not a slave owner.

However, you have yet to answer my question of whether or not you believe the civil war was fought over slavery?

Slavery ending was about the only good thing that came out of the civil war. In a wierd kinda way I'm glad it all did happen, because without the men and women of the black community our country would not be as great as it is today.

[thecavemaster]

That quote is just Lincoln trying to keep up motivation for a fight with the South. Which at that time was not going very well. Lincoln may not have been a fan of slavery. I have never argued that he was. He was not a slave owner.

However, you have yet to answer my question of whether or not you believe the civil war was fought over slavery?

Slavery ending was about the only good thing that came out of the civil war. In a wierd kinda way I'm glad it all did happen, because without the men and women of the black community our country would not be as great as it is today.

I think Lincoln, more than anything else, wanted to preserve the Union because he believed that democracy, with rights protected by a Constitution, and people empowered by the vote and free voice, was "the last best hope on earth." So, I guess, strictly speaking, the Civil War was not about ending slavery in the territorial United States.

[Beetle01]

I think Lincoln, more than anything else, wanted to preserve the Union because he believed that democracy, with rights protected by a Constitution, and people empowered by the vote and free voice, was "the last best hope on earth." So, I guess, strictly speaking, the Civil War was not about ending slavery in the territorial United States.

So you basically just said Lincoln violated the rights of the constitution to preserve them? The people of the southern states voiced opinions and secceeded. They were then invaded by the North.

So we have ruled out that it was not fought over slavery,since there were slave states who fought for the north.

We have ruled out it was not Lincoln's constitutional obligation, he actually violated the constitution in a major way.

So what was the reason? To preserve the Union? The southern states had no intentions of initially secceeding (The north forced thier hand) and would have eventually joined back up anyways. The states can't survive without eachother, however, that doesn't mean that any state should sit idly by and allow the other states to force their will on them. That in itself is oppression.

[thecavemaster]

So you basically just said Lincoln violated the rights of the constitution to preserve them? The people of the southern states voiced opinions and secceeded. They were then invaded by the North.

So we have ruled out that it was not fought over slavery,since there were slave states who fought for the north.

We have ruled out it was not Lincoln's constitutional obligation, he actually violated the constitution in a major way.

So what was the reason? To preserve the Union? The southern states had no intentions of initially secceeding (The north forced thier hand) and would have eventually joined back up anyways. The states can't survive without eachother, however, that doesn't mean that any state should sit idly by and allow the other states to force their will on them. That in itself is oppression.

Threats foreign AND DOMESTIC.... In the balance of powers between state and federal, the University of Alabama, when it denied the right of an eligible citizen to attend based purely on race, mistakenly claimed "violation of state's rights" when Bobby Kennedy sent in troops to Tuscaloosa. The fact that the Union survived 1861-1865, and still stands today, is, to me, a testimony to Lincoln's vision.

[Beetle01]

Threats foreign AND DOMESTIC.... In the balance of powers between state and federal, the University of Alabama, when it denied the right of an eligible citizen to attend based purely on race, mistakenly claimed "violation of state's rights" when Bobby Kennedy sent in troops to Tuscaloosa. The fact that the Union survived 1861-1865, and still stands today, is, to me, a testimony to Lincoln's vision.

What threat? A violation of civil rights, but not a threat.
Once again an abuse of Federal powers and a clear violation of the constitution.

[thecavemaster]

What threat? A violation of civil rights, but not a threat.
Once again an abuse of Federal powers and a clear violation of the constitution.

If denying a person freedom, of basic civil rights, is not a domestic threat, especially when practiced in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling, then what guarantee do any of us have of civil liberties? We deeply disagree here...and perhaps always will.

[Beetle01]

If denying a person freedom, of basic civil rights, is not a domestic threat, especially when practiced in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling, then what guarantee do any of us have of civil liberties? We deeply disagree here...and perhaps always will.

If you think sending in armed Federal troops is ever the answer for a civil rights violation, then I pray noone in our govt thinks like you do.
If people in Alabama were to still get in the way, were they to gun down American civilians?

This would be much tougher today. I'd say today most soldiers would lay down their weapons before killing Americans. Especially if being used as a political toy for a political party.

[DevilsWin]

If you think sending in armed Federal troops is ever the answer for a civil rights violation, then I pray noone in our govt thinks like you do.
If people in Alabama were to still get in the way, were they to gun down American civilians?

This would be much tougher today. I'd say today most soldiers would lay down their weapons before killing Americans. Especially if being used as a political toy for a political party.

If an angry mob of Racists in the south would have moved against the federal troops in Little Rock they would have been well within their rights to fire on American Civilians.

An Unruly violent mob has no rights IMO.

The constitution allows protections for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech and peaceful protest but not violent protest.

[Beetle01]

If an angry mob of Racists in the south would have moved against the federal troops in Little Rock they would have been well within their rights to fire on American Civilians.

An Unruly violent mob has no rights IMO.

The constitution allows protections for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech and peaceful protest but not violent protest.

Well it seems with more and more people taking up your way of thought, it won't be long before we become a communist country. Luckily I will be dead by then, either by natural causes or killed in protest to the liberal socialist commy agenda taking over our country.

[Beetle01]

I think its funny that the Dems will quote the constitution when it suits them best, but then ignore it when it doesn't.

Wait till they start banning assualt rifles and hunting rifles and see what happens in this country.

Hopefully when they come to take them, they send all you libs first to get them, rather than convincing soldiers it is their duty to move against American people.

[DevilsWin]

I think its funny that the Dems will quote the constitution when it suits them best, but then ignore it when it doesn't.

Wait till they start banning assualt rifles and hunting rifles and see what happens in this country.

Hopefully when they come to take them, they send all you libs first to get them, rather than convincing soldiers it is their duty to move against American people.

Once again you adopt the Politics of Fear rather than the Politics of Hope!

When you have no plan to better America the best recourse is to scare the rest into believing a bunch of BS!