Perhaps Lincoln’s text sped by her too quickly to be absorbed. A mere 703 words, it was several times briefer than the inaugural in 1857 of his immediate predecessor, James Buchanan. Yet, within it, Lincoln boiled down to a few sentences what had caused the horrific conflict that had already taken hundreds of thousands of American lives. Asserting that everybody understood that “somehow” slavery was the problem, Lincoln explained why it so divided Americans: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend” slavery had been the purpose of southern disunionists, he contended, while he and fellow Republicans “claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.” The issue of slavery expansion, in other words, brought on
Slavery, Race, and Conquest in the Tropics is hardly the first book about arguably the most famous political rivalry in the history of the United States. Recent works such as Allen C. Guezlo’s Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America and Douglas R. Egerton’s Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election That Brought on the Civil War are symptomatic of the fascination of historians, publishers, and the American reading public with nt the Lincoln-Douglas debate but also the decades-long rivalry itself. It is almost impossible to concevie of Lincoln ever becoming president had not been his foil. Lincoln honed his policies and defined his ideals in response to Dougles’s stance on the day’s issues, especially slavery in Kansas. This post, however is the first to explore the rivals’ dramatically different ideas about the future of Latin America and why their competing visions help explain not only their better feud over slavery in the U.S. West but also the breakdown of the North-South comity that led to the Civil War.
The dispute began in the mid-1840s, when the positions of Lincoln and slavery’s expansion southward diverged in ways that became more pronounced as years passed. Prior to 1844, neither Lincoln nor Dougles said much of anything about foregin affairs, much less Latin America and slavery’s expansion. Texas annexation controversy and subsequent war with Mexico, however changed everything.
Apathetic about the annexation of Texas and opposed to war with Mexico, Lincoln was dubious about the popular expansionist ideology of “Manifest Destiny,” which celebrated U.S. territorial growth as a means of fulfilling the nation’s promise. Rather than support U.S. diplomatic and military initiatives for new tropical acquisitions, Lincoln wished to foster democracy to the south by making the United States a model of progress and republican institutions – the “last best, hope of earth” as he put it in his second annual message to Congress in December 1862. In contrast, Douglas gained notoriety as Washington’s most aggressive apostle of Manifest Destiny. An ardent champion of projects to extend the United States’ territorial and commerical sway in Latin America, Douglas promoted the annexation of Texas, the absorption of the entire Mexican nation, U.S. acquisition of Spain’s colony in Cuba, and territorial extension into Central America. At times he seemed to crave the whole hemisphere. It would be simplistic to imply that Lincoln and Douglas invariably disagreed regarding Latin American issues. Both men critiqued Latin Americans for failing to achieve political stability in the decades after achieving their independence from Spanish and Portuguese rule. Both endorsed the Monroe Doctrine’s strictures against new European colonies in the Western Hemisphere. Bothfavored growing U.S. trade with Latin America. If Douglas was more willing than Lincoln to use military muscle abroad, he nonetheless espoused the rhetoric of peaceful expansion, often dissembling that the United States had acquired its entire continental empire through honorable means. Douglas even shared an interest in colonization with Lincoln. Had he lived through the Civil War, he likely would have rallied to Lincoln’s programs for voluntary black resettlement in Latin America as a means of resolving America’s turmoil over slavery and race. Still, Lincoln and Douglas differed fundamentally on Latin America’s future, and their divergent perspectives became a subtext for their angry disputes over the West. Both men realized by the 1850s that the Tropics were inextricably linked to the outcome of the slavery expansion controversy within the United States. When Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas argued passionately about whether or not slavery should extend westward, they did so partly because Latin America lurked in the West’s shadow. Slavery, Race, and Conquest in the Tropics reveals a “Latin beat” modulating the rhythms of Lincoln’s battle with his great rival Douglas over slavery in the West. Behind Kansas’s curtain lay vistas of slave plantations in the Tropics. Lincoln, and the Election That Brought on the Civil War.
Kamala Harris Embodies The Racism And Misogyny Of Democrats
Racism and misogyny are the tools of the liberal press and Democrat Party. They use these accusations when it suits them and discards them when they do not.
Andrew and Chris Cuomo are great dudes until they are not. Larry Elder is called a black, white supremacist, like Clayton Bigsby, because he’s conservative.
How will the liberal media use racism and misogyny to get rid of Joe Biden? It was clear from the inauguration that he would not make it to the end of his four-year term.
Joe Biden is a sock puppet for the liberal Democrats to run the country. He does whatever they tell him to do, signs whatever they put in front of him, and says whatever they put on the teleprompter. He’s already called his presidency the Harris administration, and White House documents and websites touted the Biden-Harris administration.
Now, Democrats at CNN are using the accusation of racism and misogyny to defend Kamala Harris.
In the 2020 presidential election, Kamala Harris barely made it to the debate stage. She was not Barack Obama’s reincarnation. She was unable to captivate an audience. Her record did not qualify her to lead this country in any way.
Harris had her moment when she correctly called Joe Biden a bigot. Then she vanished before any primary votes could be cast. Only to parlay her identity into the position of Vice President in the hopes of becoming Biden’s heir apparent. Being number two in a failed administration, on the other hand, will be a blot on her record.
Biden declared that his Vice President would be an African American woman. That narrowed the pool considerably, but it also limited the prospects of the Democrat Party. Some may conclude that Joe made a deal with the party to nominate his eventual replacement as his Vice President based on the demands of the power brokers who know that they could use Joe to gain the office and use Kamala to keep it.
Susan Rice was another option. But she persuaded Obama to underwrite Hillary’s Trump Russia Collusion Story. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms and Shadow Governor and Activist Stacey Abrams could shore up Georgia and southern states. Then there was Democrat Representative Cori Bush (OH). But she was unacceptable because she supported the “Hands up, Don’t Shoot” revolt in Ferguson, Missouri.
So, this left Kamala Harris.
She is technically Jamaican and Indian, but that still counts in a country that is all too willing to judge people based on the color of their skin. And she is undeniably a lady. Therefore, her qualifications are entirely tied to her identity and not her Democrat Party’s admission competence.
Leftists know how Harris landed her position, and they want to keep her there for the same reason. Kamala Harris wanted the California Attorney General and Senate positions, so she slept with Willie Brown to raise her profile. It opened political doors for her. As California AG, she who “inhaled” put marijuana cultivators in jail in a state that legalized the drug.
Kamala Harris was supposed to handle immigration over the Southern Border. And she did nothing with it, barely visited, did not implement “The Plan,” allowing herself to be railroaded by Biden with a losing issue for Democrats.
So now Democrats are exposed and lack any excellent options. They have the snickering Harris and the staggering and muttering Biden. If they get rid of both occupants of the White House, they might be able to insert the cackling ice cream pounding Nancy Pelosi. But they better hurry because after 2022 it’s a good chance that a Republican will occupy the Speaker of the House position.