Labor

The United States was not the only country to have slaves. However, a question comes to mind.Places where African Americans are not used for labor; such as on plantations, places where they are viewed in degrading terms? Or is it the same where ever slavery was?

Slavery

In the United States, slavery was an entirely different system then the world had ever seen. Sure, the United States wasn't the largest recipients of slaves during the Atlantic Slave Trade, however, their impact was much more monumental. In the US, slavery became more of a lifestyle, than an economic system. Of course it was still done for profit, but slavery was taken to much more bloody extremes in the United States than in the rest of the world. Could one argue that this is the reason that it lasted so long here compared to elsewhere?

Learning

After reading through various sources on Lincoln, we have come to learn that Abraham Lincoln had a thirst for knowledge and whenever he didn't know something, he did whatever possible to teach himself said topic. For example, with the civil war full in swing, Lincoln was realizing that he had no real military knowledge and wanted to become more familiar with the art of war. He began reading books about war strategies. He soon realized that reading a book on how to fight a war was extremely different then actually fighting the war. Is it safe to assume that for this situation hands on experience is of more value?

Technology

The Civil War was the first war in American history where the implementation of modern technology was utilized. The railroad, the telegraph and many other technologies were used in order to get fast information and move people and ideas around allot faster then they had been done in the past. Is that what made this war so bloody? Or was it the fact that family members were up against each other. Americans against Americans?

Lincoln

Yesterday in class we discussed the idea that Lincoln was a different form of radical in his time period over the issues of slavery. How is this possible? In a society where people attempt to make things so clear cut and so defined (black or white, poor or rich, etc.) is it really possible to forge a different path?

Middle Ground

We discussed yesterday in class that when it comes to the issue over slavery, there really is no middle ground. Abraham Lincoln struggled with this in attempt to appease both sides of the situation and find some middle, moderate ground. But is there really a more moderate stance when it comes to slavery. I mean there in theory could be however, in order to have a moderate stance, does one have to sacrifice all moral judgement to achieve it?

Religion

Does one have to attend a house of worship to be religious? I believe that one can find religion in their own way and their own manor. They don't have to be guided by the strict structure of organized religion. For example, I believe in Jesus and I considered myself to be Catholic. However, I have not been to church or any real religious service in about 15 years. I do believe that Jesus was the son of Christ and that he is our savior but with no real religious background. Does this make me a hypocrite?

Politics of the Possible

In Government, giving the people exactly what they want, is not always the best solution. It is also not always possible or practical. Government's have limits just as the people running them do as well. Politics of the Possible is a good alternative to giving the people exactly what they want. You can view the situation and determine what can be done from there with the available resources at hand. Is it a bad policy move to give the people exactly what they want and then asses what can be done after the fact?

Compromise

Something that occurred to me in the last class was that Lincoln was a big fan of compromise as the best means to solve a situation or problem. With the issue over slavery, Lincoln was constantly attempting to arrive at some form of a compromise in order to make both the slave states and the non-slave states happy. Being a huge fan of Henry Clay; or as he is sometimes referred to as "the Great Compromiser" for his work in the past, it is not surprising that Lincoln would attempt to solve each conflict by Compromise. Is this seen as a personal weakness of Lincolns or do you feel that Compromising is a good solution?

Mexican War

I know I have been doing allot of blogs about Lincoln's possible thoughts on other historical conflicts... but what can i say. I'm a History major. Alright next thought. The Mexican War; arguably one of, if not the most difficult war to defend. Basically, The United States saw land in Mexico, and they took it. There you go! Hard to support huh? Now we know that Lincoln was not in support of the war but was he not in support because if they U.S. won, that would mean that more slave states would be added to the Union, or was he opposed to it on other moral grounds?

Monroe

The Monroe Doctrine was created in attempt to end the influence of European Powers in the Western Hemisphere by stating that if they were to get involved in any way shape or form in American countries affairs, that would be seen as a direct attack on the United States and it would mean war. The Monroe Doctrine is not law, however many believed it to be true. If Europe did end up helping the South in the Civil War, would Lincoln see that as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine or is there no sign of his support of this document in history?

Influence

It has been said that moral behavior is something that is learned from other people by being influenced by them when they are around you. Aristotle believes this and would argue that that is the only way that moral behavior can actually be acquired. Now a question that I pose is, why did Hitler end up becoming a ruthless dictator? He grew up surrounded by the arts and knowledge and then became one of the most ruthless dictators of the 20th century.

Containment

Yesterday in class we discussed the issues that the United States faced with slavery and what was attempted to be done with it. As mentioned slavery was a pressing problem and few were sure what should be done with it. Most people agreed that they wanted it to cease to spread. Instead of outright ending it, they wanted to contain it to the South. This became impractical due to the Manifest Destiny Spirit that was sweeping the nation. The question I pose is, why; if containment didn't work with the South, did they think it would be successful to contain communism to the Soviet Union? Also, why did it work?