Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
Per the governor of MA possibly planning to use force in 1859:
Here’s a quote from the governor of SC on December 10 of that year, 8 days after Brown’s execution. The issue at hand was the election of a Speaker for the House, which was deadlocked between North and South.
The governor writing to one of his Congressmen, “If you ... upon consultation decide to make the issue of force in Washington, write or telegraph me, and I will have a regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time.”
So what we have here is no real evidence that a northern governor was planning to use force in the confrontation started (or at least greatly exacerbated) by John Brown, while we do have proof a southern governor had made plans to do so.
For — yes, let America know it, and ponder on it well — there is something more terrible than Cain slaying Abel: It is Washington slaying Spartacus!
The whole thing is pretty interesting to read.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo's_letter_to_the_London_News_regarding_John_Brown
Most interesting!
That would be South Carolina Governor William Henry Gist, whose term ended in December 1860, but lasted long enough for him to call (on November 10) the secession convention, approve (November 13) raising 10,000 militia troops and sign its Declaration of Secession (December 20).
He also oversaw the November 7 detention of a US officer for moving military supplies to Fort Moultrie, the November 9 attempt by secessionists to seize arms stored at Fort Moultrie, and the first SC delegation to visit Washington (December 10).
Gist's successor, Governor Francis W Pickens, immediately became a central figure in the drama at Fort Sumter.
Piffle and argle-bargle. Now you want the note from Governor Banks, with his DNA still on the paper, as your new, elevated standard of proof. Liberal b.s. tactics.
French intellectuals. Need I say more?
And yet Lincoln sent Irwin McDowell into Virginia in 1861 to do the same job with (only) 40,000 .... and then had to listen to George McClellan telling him a year later that the job still couldn't be done with nearly thrice that many.
Yes, people's estimates of what would be necessary manpower levels did change over time. And the South's manpower still turned out to be inadequate, didn't it?
Not necessarily. I’d just like to see something vaguely resembling evidence that Banks did any such thing. So far all you’ve done is state it as a fact without providing any evidence that it actually took place.
With exactly the same degree of credibility I could state that General Lee was a pedophile. No need to provide proof or evidence.
If I make a claim everyone must assume it is true.
Well you might want to. That Hugo was an intellectual and French does not make him wrong.
Though IMO it does create a presumption in that direction.
One of the most interesting things I’ve learned reading ancient writers such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Josephus, etc. is how drastically unspoken societal presumptions change over time. All these guys who write about Spartacus just assume that their audience is against Spartacus. After all, he was a slave rebelling against his masters and thus the natural order of society.
OTOH, the various movies and TV shows about Spartacus assume, accurately, that a modern audience is generally predisposed to assume Spartacus is the good guy. After all, he’s a slave rebelling against oppression.
IMO any American who is a true American will default to the position of supporting a slave rebellion. Obviously the South of 1860 and I assume many of the neo-confederates of today would feel otherwise.
Which is why I consider those with this POV to be unAmerican or even anti-America.
Your mileage probably differs.
Still, I'll keep trying to post these links.
Notice, in the last linked newspaper story, the confidential communications and the dates: Edwin Stanton was in Pres. Buchanan's cabinet at the time of the "confidential" communications with Gov. John Andrew. Ergo, Andrew was interfering with Buchanan's cabinet and policies.
Winfield Scott was Buchanan's chief of staff at the time as well, and was giving Buchanan advice that reflects the views of Lincoln, Andrew, and other "war party" politicians. See also the reference and link above to Andrew's confidential communications in January with Winfield Scott (Lincoln was also communicating with Scott months before Lincoln's inauguration, and so he, too, was interfering.)
Untrustworthy writer, McPherson is a "red-diaper" Leftist who likes to hang with the Communists at Pacifica Radio when he feels like letting his hair down.
McPherson's whole thesis was that the Civil War was a huge example of the glories of vanguard-led, top-down, classic Marxist-Leninist "revolution" (as in, "war of national liberation", for the benefit of those of you old enough to recognize that Communist formula) against a hated and hateful capitalist bourgeoisie.
That's why Bill Clinton called in McPherson and Columbia University (as in, "Little Red Schoolhouse") Communist historian Eric Foner to rewrite all the historical material distributed by the National Park Service to visitors at Gettysburg. All the docents and pamphlets now bark the Clinton Party Line that the South was Wrong and Evil and clearly deserved, morally, spiritually, and historically, to be defeated at Gettysburg and in the Civil War, now and forever, without relief or surcease, in a hell of Lincoln's sacred making, and be sure to Vote for Liberal Democrats. </Clintonista b.s.>
I can't believe you guys go for that garbage. It was whomped up after Lincoln died by German Reds like Carl Schurz and is now being reinforced by Clintonistas as a political tool to divide the electorate.
Sorry I can't do a better job of linking. I can't comment on the links in the same window, either, I noticed. FR autodetects, but then that requires we louse up our usual punctuation and paragraph divisions and line breaks. Bummer.
http://www.onlinebiographies.info/gov/buckingham-william.html
Note the dates of Lincoln's pre-inaugural visit to Connecticut, and of the NYT article about war preparations in Connecticut.
It's hard to figure out how that happened, but Congress and the bureaucracy and local administrators as well as non-governmental groups sponsor a lot of things that can be made to look like some great evil plan from a distance, though they may only be separate and independent initiatives.
James McPherson, out of North Dakota and Gustavus Adolphus College, most likely didn't come from the same CP background, though he has given several interviews to the World Socialist Website.
McPherson was appointed by the Senate to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission in 1991 before Clinton was elected. They were more concerned with the preservation of battlefields: important, essentially non-partisan work.
In 1991, McPherson wrote a letter to the White House urging that the President not send a wreath to honor the Confederate dead on Confederate Memorial Day. Obama sent the wreath anyway. As of last year he was still sending a wreath. No word on whether he will do so this year.
If you were talking about Philip Foner (Eric's uncle) writing his books 60 years ago in between party meetings you might have a valid point, but just making personal attacks doesn't do much to support whatever argument you may have.
Surely, just how different individuals or groups or parts of the country reacted to John Brown is something that can be studied on its own, by evaluating arguments and assertions on their own merits, rather than by simply discounting whatever is said in a book by one author.
It would be nice if FreeRepublic offered a short “oops I goofed” window of opportunity to edit posts.
Look from about post 400 or so down to about 430, for a discussion of war preparation in the States, in 1860 and 1861.
I'm still looking for the source of the info on Gov. Banks and his Militia review, six regiments strong, on the occasion of John Brown's trial in autumn 1859.
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.