Posted on 04/13/2017 6:58:51 PM PDT by brucedickinson
Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Gee...I miss Non Sequitur.
(Wait, no I don’t)
;D
Thanks, one thing certain: nobody can do it alone.
Especially when they come out of the woodwork in force, as they have today.
Of course he was, and defend it he did.
It's more than disingenuous, it's an outright lie, and they all know it.
See DoodleDawg's post #89 and drjimmy's post #91.
I could add the Mississippi Reasons for Secession document from January 1861:
Oh, but they did!
And unlike our modern pro-Confederates the original secessionists of 1861 had no bashfulness in expressing their true feelings!
At the same time they declared secession several states also wrote up "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession" and these all focus almost exclusively on slavery.
See my post #144 for a link to the Mississippi reasons.
KrisKrinkle: "Seems to me that cuts in more than one direction. The South played a part too."
Indeed, but just like our modern Democrats and their media accomplices, when they shut down the government while loudly / adamantly blaming Republicans, our pro-Confederates wish us to understand that only "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans were responsible for four years of war and hundreds of thousands dead.
In fact, Confederates provoked, started, declared and waged war in Union states refusing to end it on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
But being at heart Democrats, they can't accept responsibility for their own actions.
No, the heart and soul of Republicans from Day One until today has always been rural, small town & suburban, small business, traditional Christian, patriotic, pro-military & law enforcement, conservative, small government.
And people like that are pretty much the same, North, East, West and South.
Sure, some of us have been pretty well educated, but Democrats have always claimed the highest posts in academia.
For a historical example, think of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, former President of Princeton University!
So John S Mosby's claim that Northern Republicans don't "get" the South is absurd because in most ways we're the same kind of people, and decidedly different from your typical Democrats.
Of course, ex-Dixiecrats who'd like to be Republicans without having to give up their pro-Confederate Lost Causer mythology... sorry, not so much we can do for you folks.
Depends on who you listen to. The Confederate leadership considered Missouri and Kentucky to be part of their confederacy. Were they lying?
In other words, you don’t know, and you’re not thinking your way through to the implications of the fact that there were any black slavers.
Then by all means enlighten us. How many black slave owners were there?
No, the New York draft riot was started by a rumor that Lincoln was pursuing the war to free the slaves rather than to keep the Union together.
No, it was conscription. That's why they were called the "New York Draft Riots" and not the "New York Anti-Emancipation Riots".
If I ever make an argument like that, just shoot me.
I think it's a safe bet that you will never be in a position where you can end slavery. Or that you would even if you where.
Constitutionally he couldn’t suspend habeas corpus or wage war on the southern states, either...
That has never been ruled on.
He was quite willing to allow the institution of slavery to stand in return for a cessation in hostilities.
We don't know that for sure.
It was only when he saw that the slavery issue was not enough to satisfy the South, and that the Brits were not going to come in on the side of the South, that he let himself be pressured into the Emancipation Proclamation.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
This tells us that slavery was not the main issue for the South.
The Confederate leadership of the time would disagree with you. See reply 89.
No, and neither would the South.
And yet they did.
It’s an approximation based on analysis of the progress of the industrial revolution, the condition of the soil, and many other factors. It is tendentious in the extreme to insist that slavery would have continued in the US while historical events were rendering it untenable throughout the western hemisphere.
In other words it's a made up number that you pulled out of your...posterior.
Sorry, you’re not entitled to your own facts. The South sought to secede, as they had every moral and legal right to do. Lincoln launched the war to deny them the exercise of their right to self-government.
Blew right by that whole Fort Sumter thing didn't you? The point is that the other countries were able to pull it off without a war, and the US would have as well.
We will never really know since the South did launch a war to defend slavery and lost their slaves in the process.
The war was about northern legislators taxing the south to pay for the teeming masses in the large cities. Stealing, in other words. The north had no right to help themselves to the wealth of the South, and the South decided to end that abuse by seceding. Lincoln, and pretty much the entire north said, “No, we’re stealing your property, and if you don’t like it, we’ll kill you.”
Complete nonsense.
“I think it’s a safe bet that you will never be in a position where you can end slavery. Or that you would even if you were.”
You are a despicable swine. I hope to meet you one day.
A pleasure that I'm willing to forego.
Let's just stipulate that you are correct so that we can once and for all dispose of the notion that Lincoln's War was fought for some high moral humanitarian purpose like “freeing the slaves.”
But fight and kill Lincoln and his backers did for a purpose which was, for them, desperately important. And the reason: money.
“If you’re referring to the “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” to mean slave rebellions, well, there is a lot to dispute in that.”
There is no dispute about the meaning of the reference, unless you have invented one.
"I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327.
"We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by thus fostering Human Slavery and proclaiming ourselves, at the same time, the sole friends of Human Freedom." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (October 4, 1854), p. 24
"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Baslero
Are you the delegation YankeeDoodle sent to deliver the message?
Nah, we’re just spectators watching you make a fool of yourself (again).
Well at least now I have an answer to “Where do you people get that crap?!”
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you statement is correct is that worse than fighting to defend slavery?
Lincoln fought the war the Confederacy forced on him. Whether for money, as you claim, or to preserve the Union, which was the actual goal, the aggressor was Davis and the Confederacy. You question why Lincoln fought the war yet you don't ask why Davis began it in the first place. Why?
Which item listed is not true?
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.