Posted on 02/26/2015 11:13:23 AM PST by C19fan
So we’re in late February, which means it’s the season for local Jefferson-Jackson Days, when local Democratic Parties hold potlucks to raise money and get people pumped for Get Out the Vote drives. It’s also shortly after President’s Day, which is, for me, always a day spent reminiscing about random presidential trivia and tweeting unpopular opinions.
And for once one of those unpopular opinions caught the attention of an editor and now I’m writing about how the “Jackson” in Jefferson-Jackson Day is an abomination. Indeed, I want to grab my fellow Democrats who say stupid, historically ignorant things about how George W. Bush was “the worst President ever” by the lapels and shove them at Andrew Jackson’s Wikipedia entry, rubbing their nose in it until they understand what they did.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
You mean once the Confederacy had started their war? Probably not.
I sort of like it when people make nonsensical arguments. It is easier to point out their errors tho sometimes it gets to the point of being stupid.
I still have little doubt that Charleston Harbor was the most important one in the South for various reasons. As I said earlier, no country would allow a hostile nation to control their most important harbor.
New Orleans and Norfolk both had serious weaknesses. The Mississippi was controlled for a great deal of it’s length by the North. It was vulnerable. Norfolk because of it’s location was also vulnerable. Charleston held out to the very last.
It was the South’s most important harbor.
Sure, Jeff Davis personally lead the invasion of the North.
Anyone who claims the South started the war is simply being dishonest.
I am not particularly a fan of AJ, but this part is just stupid.
“Heroically breaking a treaty with the Creeks to slaughter them wholesale.”
The Creeks attacked first, breaking the treaty, and in rather spectacular fashion.
They captured Fort Mims, due to the idiocy of the defenders. (The commander had the slaves who reported the approaching Creeks whipped for spreading rumors!) The Creeks killed something between 250 and 400 whites, blacks, dissident Creeks. Many as usual women and children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Mims_massacre
http://www.canerossi.us/ftmims/massacre.htm
The attack was more or less an episode in an ongoing civil war among the Creeks, but the whites in the SW can be forgiven for not being all that concerned about which Creeks were which after so many whites were killed.
Fort Mims Massacre was August 1813. Jackon didn’t counterattack the Creeks till November. He was also at the time merely a militia general. Odd to saddle him with the responsibility for deciding whether to fight the Creeks.
There are lots of reasons to disapprove of AJ, but breaking a treaty with the Creeks isn’t one of them.
You are right about one thing. Lincoln was smart. In fact he was brilliant. But he used that intelligence to destroy the nation.
Now he didn’t destroy it right then but he sowed the seeds which produced Obama and the shape this country is in now.
Lincoln is to be blamed more than anyone for the Federal takeover of the nation.
Theodore Roosevelt was a great man and a great president but he also started some things which eventually turned out rotten. Don’t get me wrong, I admire TR tremendously and suspect he would have done some things differently if he knew how they would evolve.
On the other hand, Lincoln did exactly what he wanted to do and it was evil. Despite that, his death was the worst thing which could have happened to the South.
The Chi Coms did not in fire on Hong Kong even through it was owned by the UK.
At various times both the UK and the US did military build ups yet their bases were not fired on.
So your contention that "the North was the aggressor" does not hold water.
Of course the secession did not make any sense either.
And I never bought the "states rights" angle seeing as it was the South that repeatedly tried to impose it's will on the free states by demanding that they enforce slavery laws on free states land.
Your post is pure blather.
If Castro thought he had the ability to capture Guantanamo he would have done it yesterday.
Of course there is really no comparison with Fort Sumter. None at all.
Hong Kong is an odd situation. For the last few years at least there was no point in taking it. It would be theirs anyway in a short time.
As for it being the Confederate main harbor, you would find some debate on that point.
That is exactly the same thing as saying that South Carolina is not South Carolina.
Eggzackly.
The South could have fairly easily had its independence simply by passing emancipation, even very gradual and compensated emancipation.
One of the very best southern generals, Cleburne, pointed this out. The shock and horror of the southern elite at anyone even saying such a thing is astonishing. Despite his being one of their best generals at a time when good generals were despertely needed, Cleburne's career ascent stalled after his proposal. He stayed in the same rank until he died in battle.
The reason the southern elite could not get their minds around the concept of trading emancipation for independence is that almost the whole reason they wanted to be independent was to protect slavery.
Independence without slavery was pointless, in their eyes.
Logic and reason often appear as blather to those who are emoting rather then thinking.
If Castro thought he had the ability to capture Guantanamo he would have done it yesterday.
It did not stop him from writing a bunch of other military checks his butt could not cash.
Of course there is really no comparison with Fort Sumter. None at all.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Hong Kong is an odd situation. For the last few years at least there was no point in taking it. It would be theirs anyway in a short time.
Which explains why they waited for the last few years but not the decades before.
No, it is like saying property that you have deeded away does not belong to you.
There is some wisdom in what you are saying but it wasn’t that the South was so in love with slavery. Many Southerners including Lee were opposed to slavery.
The reason so many remained defiant is because any time someone from the outside demands that you do something and attack you, you become defensive.
The fact that the worst of the abolitionists were the same states which were heavily involved in the slave trade when it was economically beneficial didn’t help.
And the truth is most Southerners really did believe in local and states rights. They were extremely wary of a strong Federal government.
How do you respond to nonsense?
I guess you say it is nonsense.
“As for it being the Confederate main harbor, you would find some debate on that point. “
—
I never said it was the main harbor,I just said that Gitmo wasn’t Cuba’s main harbor.
.
This is, of course, why they demanded the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, specifically intended to override state laws making return of fugitives to slavery more difficult.
The specific issue over which the Democratic Party fell apart in 1860 was southern insistence on a federal Slave Code using federal power to force slavery on occupants of territories against their will. When northern Democrats balked, southern Democrats split their party three ways, handing Lincoln the election.
IOW, southerners didn't dislike federal power at all as long as they controlled it, which they did for most of the period from independence to the WBTS. In fact, in at least those two cases they demanded significant expansion of federal power.
Nonsense!
Just because you believe in states rights does not mean there is no place for the Federal government at all. Interstate Commerce is one of the few areas in which a Federal government is necessary. That is of course if it really is about interstate business.
Righto!
Oddly enough, that’s exactly how a Republican Congress and President could have constitutionally put slavery on the road to extinction.
Just prohibit interstate commerce in slaves. Shut up in their individual little markets, slavery would have withered quickly, at least in the upper and border slave states.
You appaently seem to think imposing a federal Slave Code on inhabitants of territories would have been an exercise of the Interstate Commerce clause. I’m curious why you think that’s the case.
The guys on the other side of that argument were at least liable for half of those deaths. Were they 'pure evil' too?
And if this nation has been 'pure evil' for the last 150 years, why in the hell are you still here?
BTW. I better men than us, such as George Washington, didn't considered the Union an 'abstraction.' They risked everything, including their lives, to make it a reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.