Posted on 03/28/2015 5:52:00 AM PDT by C19fan
John Breckinridge, the Vice President at the time, was the southern states candidate so if he had won the southern states would of stayed in the union..
Given that most southern states left the Union before Lincoln even took office so he hadn't even implemented a policy.... what was the difference between the two ?
What did the south think Lincoln would... do or not do as president... that they had to leave the Union
... or...
What did the south think Breckinridge would ...do or not do as president...that the south would state in the Union
..did in have something to do with what Lincoln was NOT going to do?..
Like Lincoln was NOT going to use the federal to enforce the Supreme Court Dred Scott ruling in the northern states with regards to runaway slaves? (read Lincoln's first inaugural address)
So again what was the difference in policy between Lincoln and the south choice Breckinridge ?... could it be Breckinridge would use the federal to enforce Dred Scott in the north?
It should also be noted that somewhere between 5% and 6% of southerners owned slaves in 1860. Which implies that at that time, 94% or 95% did not. 85% of Southerners owned the land and structures they lived upon, mostly small farms that *competed* with slave labored plantations.
The slave trade was very profitably financed from New England, and ironically, this paid in large part for the Industrial Revolution in the North, which allowed the North to conquer the South.
Before 1830, abolitionists in the North had advocated secession, because congress was dominated by the South. After 1830, when the North became dominant, only the South advocated secession.
Lincoln ordered the closure of 300 northern newspapers that either supported the South or advocated peace. Jefferson Davis did not close any, even those vigorously opposed to the war, secession or slavery.
Then you should have little difficulty posting evidence of this claim.
You know, facts.
It is more than a little silly to think that Lincoln was issuing personal orders to colonels in MO operating behind enemy lines. He was kind of busy with other stuff.
BTW, Lane’s forces were disbanded because his actions at Osceola were against Union policy. Which is why there were not more such atrocities than there were.
Surprisingly, there were far fewer atrocities committed during the WBTS than in any other great civil war of history.
I found this a very interesting read, if not slightly self-serving:
Leonard M Scruggs, “The Un-Civil War Shattering the Historical Myths”
“I wouldn’t ask sons of Confederate veterans to disown their ancestry;”
Sure he would. He wants us all to embrace the history of of the Southern Unionists. There is the definition of insanity. LOL!
You made me think of something. South Postpones Rising Again (From the Onion, this is just too good to resist)
In his First Inaugural Lincoln did not state that he would not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. He did, however, imply that it should be reconsidered, particularly to make sure that those claimed to be slaves actually were slaves.
The odd part of this is that the Fugitive Slave Act had been admittedly passed to expand federal power and override states’ rights exercised by northern states.
Similarly, the actual issue on which the Democratic Party broke apart, ensuring Lincoln’s election, was over whether Congress should pass a Slave Code imposing slavery on all territories regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants.
Yet southern apologists, after the war and since, insist that they seceded in resistance to federal power. Whereas the facts indicated they seceded because the north refused to expand federal power in the way they wanted it to.
Wow. A few years ago, it was only 30% of CSA troops owned slaves. Then it went to only 10%. Now its virtually no Confederate soldiers actually owned slaves. What's next... there were no slaves in the Confederacy?
Sorry, but that’s baloney. Roughly 6% of white people in the South owned title to slaves. But such ownership is generally referred to families, not individuals. As can be seen by your similar statistic of 85% of southerners owning their homes and land. As with slaves, that title is vested in the head of the house.
So the wife and kids own the farm, but not the slaves that work on it. Use one method for calculating ownership.
Take the 6% and multiply it by the average family size of 5 or so, and you get 30% or so, which is quite near the percentage of southern families that owned slaves (30.8). It was much higher in the Deep South, with SC and MS at almost but not quite 50%.
http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
Stats are from the 1860 Census.
BTW, if you use your method of calculating slave ownership, you will find only about 16% of southerners owned their homes and farms. Can’t have it both ways.
.....Exactly !!!!...that's the whole irony it was the south wanting the federal to impose the Supreme Court ruling on the northern states....
Truth be told after the Dred Scott ruling by the Supreme Court... the war was going to happen no matter who won control of the presidency ...
Because if the southern states candidate for president had won and he started using the federal in the north to enforce... the northern states would of gone in rebellion against the federal union
I don’t think for a minute you are lying and a few years ago I would have been right with you.
Unfortunately I do not have all of the resources that my wife and children used at my finger tips. We did develop an extensive library on the subject and I would even post some of my children’s essay’s on the subject but in my experience it will not change your mind so to commit the hours it would take me to do so would be in vain. The most interesting part of their research came from talking to about 6-7 of the “old timer” locals and the literature they either provided or pointed them too.
Funny thing here is that I was born a “JayHawker” very near Douglas County, Kansas. I was raised with the teaching that the mean southern slave owning race hating bigots killed alot of people in Lawrence. To hear anything different was foreign to my doctrine. I was skeptical to say the least when my children began to study this subject and tell me there was more to the story.
I will allow you that not every single account from each side is going to be 100% accurate or 100% false. I do understand the nature of man, the nature and lust for power and the results that come when the victors........
This guy said it better;
“Patrick Ronayne Cleburne “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
-— Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.
Uhh, the mean slave owning race hating bigots DID kill a lot of people in Lawrence.
164 civilians, versus 9 in Osceola.
Recollections of old-timers are notoriously inaccurate. It is human nature to over time gradually remember things in a way that makes you look better and your enemies look worse. Which is why good historians lean more to contemporary documents. I am no doubt as guilty of this as anyone else.
I don’t doubt that you and your children sincerely believe what you do. I just doubt that it’s really what happened.
BTW, I’m the product of a mixed marriage.
Mom was from MO and Dad from KS. :)
Careful now...the butthurt factor from that picture alone is (apparently) enough to send some, er, partisans over the edge LOL
There were plenty of despicable characters on both sides of the Border War.
http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-missouri-and-kansas.htm
Osceola was only ONE of many.
The Old timers around here sent my wife and children to many books a large number that are out of print.
Lincoln ordered telegraph wires cut, news paper offices burnt down, and yes even towns and districts to be burnt.
I highly recommend the book “The Real Lincoln”
“Mom was from MO and Dad from KS.”
Are we brothers?
Can we agree that the Fed Gov has to much power?
There were plenty of despicable characters on both sides of the Border War.
http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-missouri-and-kansas.htm
No doubt about it! I didn’t even go to the link I already know it is true.
This all starts with and activist Supreme Court supporting the southern states in a ruling on "slaves" still being a slave even outside of slave states and that the federal must impose slave property rights in all states and federal territories ...
up till then the great compromise is have been working to some degree and slavery was going to slowly wither away and I as intended by both sides..
There were lots of Southerners that did not support slavery and wanted to see the institution dry up in a controlled manner... think Lee himself
but then the damn activist Supreme Court kick the anthill and feeds the southern slavery hotheads hardliners wants.
So then you have south then wanting the federal to impose the South's "rights" on the norther states and peoples and the free territories....else they will leave the Union...
And bound by honor... you even have the non slave supporting Southerners going along to support their state if they leave the Union....
The infamous Order #9, I believe, evacuated several counties along the KS border and burned the buildings to prevent them being used as refuge for the guerrillas.
I don’t approve of that policy, though I refer you to the policies advocated by a good many freepers for dealing with populations supporting guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Kill ‘em all” has frequently been suggested, including from some all bent out of shape by Lincoln’s policies. Sometimes the objection is not to particular methods of war, it’s to being on the receiving end of them.
Cutting telegraph wires is a routine part of war. Inhibiting the enemy’s communications.
Lincoln closed multiple newspapers, usually briefly. Had you considered what would have happened to openly pro-Axis papers in this country during WWII? Would they have been allowed to operate freely?
As mentioned above, I realize troops under Lincoln’s authority burned towns and districts, although they seldom, if ever, massacred civilians.
I agree FedGov has too much power. I just disagree that its power has much of anything to do with Lincoln’s actions during the War.
After the War, the federal government returned (mostly) to its previous limited role for several decades. The rapid and continuous expansion of federal power we all know and love began only in the 1890s as the Progressives gained influence.
The Progressives based their policies not on looking back to Lincoln, but on contemporary practice in Europe, particularly in Germany.
To make Lincoln responsible for the mess we have now, you have to assume that the Progressives would never have existed without Lincoln having done what he did. And I don’t think that assumption can be supported.
I recently grabbed as many confederate flags as I could when visiting southern battlefields last year. I sent many to friends in England who have a romance with the south. I wanted to preserve the flag before it got banned!
I ended up explaining what the Berlin Wall was in contrast to the American border to my daughters 4th-6th grade friends. They couldn’t understand the difference, and they only knew World War 2 as defeating Nazis and nuking Japan, nothing really of cold war except we invaded countries and the world could end in nuclear war.
I explained that the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, while an American border wall would be to keep people out. And that if we have to build a wall to keep people OUT, that proves we aren’t as bad as the history books are telling you.
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.