Given the reports of election tampering in the North cited in earlier posts and Butler's statements about what he did, I think there is more than a little possibility for what I mentioned.
Yeah, and you guys say everything about Lincoln and nothing about the south.
Lincoln is an easy target because of the unconstitutional things he did. At least, I and many others believe they were unconstitutional. One thing these threads have made me aware of is the importance of adhering to the Constitution. Unconstitutional actions like present-day CFR get me riled up. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus does the same. I get goosebumps when I read ex parte Merryman.
I think the South had a much stronger case constitutionally concerning secession than the North. Your secession argument doesn't sway me.
Why do you have to believe the absolute worst about people when those same people make up 3/4 of America now?
You are making a very big incorrect assumption about me. If you really mean me personally, please provide some examples.
I lived in the North as an adult for 8 years. Some parts of the North I like, but for overall quality of life I much prefer the South. People in my laboratory who were transferred North couldn't wait to get back home and all returned. Northerners from our Northern office reluctantly accepted transfers to our office, then would ask to stay in most cases. As I said, it is a quality of life thing.
There are parts of the South I don't like. The South Bronx comes to mind. After all, those Southerners who voted in NYC in 1864 had to live somewhere.
Is it fair to demonize every northern person, every northern general, every northern soldier so one-sidedly? Do you really believe everyone from the north is evil?
I will admit to abusing Beast Butler. He did things like hang a man for taking down a flag. I have always been flabergasted that Lincoln asked Butler to be his running mate in 1864.
Lincoln was smart enough to realize that reconstruction should not be harsh. Unfortunately he was killed, and then the Radicals got hold of the reconstruction process. Here in Texas the Radicals attempted to stay in power after being voted out of office by seizing the Capitol Building with an armed mob and kidnapping the mayor of Austin. People down here didn't take kindly to that sort of thing, just as you wouldn't if the South had done similar things in your state.
BTW, I have friends in the North and a son that lives in NYC. My grandfather taught medicine in NYC.
I don't care what you think, the only thing I don't like is the falseness of it all every day. When you talk about northern rapes, no mention is made about confederate rapes.
"I don't care what you think?" Please take a Dale Carnegie course.
There are far fewer Southern rapes in the records. Part of it has to do with soldiers perhaps feeling more free to rape when they are in enemy territory. Part of it may have to do with the fact that rapes by Northern troops were handled by the Northern military courts which left records, while until late in the war Southern rapes were handled by the civil courts. The records and many Southern courthouses were destroyed by the war. As a genealogist, I know that all too well.
When you talk about what you see as unfairness in halting secession, you never mention the unfairness of slavery.
You haven't been around these threads enough. I've argued that slavery was the main, but not the only, cause of the war. Slavery was legal at the time, and the fact that Northern states were nullifying the Constitution with personal liberty laws was a leading cause of the war.
I argued against segregation in the Deep South in the 50s and for the civil and voting rights of blacks. Fortunately times have changed, but I wonder if you would have done that in the Deep South back in the 50s. It got me a death threat.
When you talk about the northern generals you hate, you never mention the southern general that murdered his own troops by sending them to their deaths on a night attack just because he was angry at them. This is what makes your claims so unbelievable, you can't admit anything.
I've honestly never heard of this general. Who was he?
I don't hate any Northern general, but my Georgia in-laws sure did (Sherman -- when their parents were children they saw Sherman's troops come through their farms).
I strongly dislike the tactics of Northern generals Hunter, Sheridan, Sherman, Butler, Wild, and Grant because they made war on civilians. I don't like Federal General Foster because he caused the deaths of some of the 600 Confederate prisoners I mentioned by starving them, and it wasn't because of any restriction in food supply as you intimated. If you'll pardon me, that is a lame excuse in this case.
What is it you feel I can't admit?
So you take what "some said", assume it's true and use that to further speculate about what others said. Keep doing that and you're as far away from the truth as you can get.
Lincoln is an easy target because of the unconstitutional things he did.
Articles I and II gave him the power to do what he did when there is rebellion, limited by Congress' ability to impeach him, and he wasn't impeached.
At least, I and many others believe they were unconstitutional. One thing these threads have made me aware of is the importance of adhering to the Constitution.
And the south should've adhered to Article I concerning associations, and Article IV.
Unconstitutional actions like present-day CFR get me riled up. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus does the same.
It was rebellion, and he can do what was necessary, limited by impeachment.
I get goosebumps when I read ex parte Merryman. I think the South had a much stronger case constitutionally concerning secession than the North. Your secession argument doesn't sway me.
I'm not trying to sway you, I'm just countering the one-sidedness, exaggeration, and the omission of facts by your side
You are making a very big incorrect assumption about me. If you really mean me personally, please provide some examples.
You repeat things you have no proof of assuming they're true just because someone said it before. You believe that murder was one-sided, when it wasn't. You assume every bad thing you read about Lincoln is true when there is no proof of it.
I lived in the North as an adult for 8 years. Some parts of the North I like, but for overall quality of life I much prefer the South. People in my laboratory who were transferred North couldn't wait to get back home and all returned.
It's a matter of being with your own people though. Most everyone I know that moved south has come home too. I don't think it has to to with the goodness of people, it has to do with being those that have a common bond.
Northerners from our Northern office reluctantly accepted transfers to our office, then would ask to stay in most cases. As I said, it is a quality of life thing.
But the odds are you're going to see that because it's where you live. They did a survey of American towns asking what towns were the friendliest towns in America and Illinois took four of the top six or seven. I dated a woman from 100 miles south of my town (getting near Kentucky) and she said she couldn't believe how much friendlier the people were as she got near my area. When I spent two days visiting her, I could see the difference in the friendliness of those her in her town, they weren't people you could talk to for the most part. That's not to say that it gets worse as you go farther south because I've taken trips to the south and I think people around the Charlotte area (I spent a couple days in Earnhardt country in 2000) are great.
There are parts of the South I don't like. The South Bronx comes to mind. After all, those Southerners who voted in NYC in 1864 had to live somewhere. I will admit to abusing Beast Butler. He did things like hang a man for taking down a flag. I have always been flabergasted that Lincoln asked Butler to be his running mate in 1864.
Some saw what the southerners did as traitorism. I dare to say that if the east and left coasts decided to align with France, Germany, etc, to secede, and invited these socialist countries to help them secede to break up America that many here would call for the hangings of traitors for anything they could get them on. That's not to say I agree with the hanging of secessionists, but I can understand the sentiment, they're aligning with those that hate our ways. 1860 wasn't long after 1812.
Lincoln was smart enough to realize that reconstruction should not be harsh. Unfortunately he was killed, and then the Radicals got hold of the reconstruction process. Here in Texas the Radicals attempted to stay in power after being voted out of office by seizing the Capitol Building with an armed mob and kidnapping the mayor of Austin. People down here didn't take kindly to that sort of thing, just as you wouldn't if the South had done similar things in your state.
I don't deny that some weren't of the purest of heart, but what I disagree with is acting as if one side were all devils, while the other side were all angels and promoting that idea with falsities, exaggerations, and omission of facts.
BTW, I have friends in the North and a son that lives in NYC. My grandfather taught medicine in NYC.
I got friends in the north too, believe it or not. I try not to talk about politics to my friends unless they agree with me, because I can get fired up. I keep more friends that way. :^)
"I don't care what you think?" Please take a Dale Carnegie course.
I know that most of you read your books, taking a week to soak in one man's opinion, lose perspective, and become beyond redemption to truth. That's why I say I don't care what you think, but just want to counter the falsities and omissions of facts by telling simple truths, and getting a few facts out there, like the confederate rapes thing that has never been mentioned before.
There are far fewer Southern rapes in the records.
Because they didn't keep records. Earlier on this thread I showed a letter by a governer of one southern state pleading with a Confederate military official to charge rape against his soldiers that raped. He said since there was a dispute between who had jurisdiction, confederate soldiers were not being charged when they raped confederate women.
Part of it has to do with soldiers perhaps feeling more free to rape when they are in enemy territory.
My early link show that the rates were about the same. The criminal mind occupies about the same rate of southerners as it does northerners.
Part of it may have to do with the fact that rapes by Northern troops were handled by the Northern military courts which left records, while until late in the war Southern rapes were handled by the civil courts. The records and many Southern courthouses were destroyed by the war. As a genealogist, I know that all too well.
And part of it may be that the south needed every soldier more than the north and didn't want to lost them to charges of rape.
You haven't been around these threads enough. I've argued that slavery was the main, but not the only, cause of the war. Slavery was legal at the time, and the fact that Northern states were nullifying the Constitution with personal liberty laws was a leading cause of the war.
I'm glad to see you say that. I for one put God's law as the only Supreme law over the Constitution (which there should never be a conflict (since slavery was removed) because the Constitution is drawn from God's law) and although the ordinances of the First Covenant were done away with when Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, God did not want Israelites to be slaves to other Israelites. Most blacks believe in the God of Israel making them Israelites by the promise to Abraham and should not have been slaves by circumstances of their birth alone.
I argued against segregation in the Deep South in the 50s and for the civil and voting rights of blacks. Fortunately times have changed, but I wonder if you would have done that in the Deep South back in the 50s. It got me a death threat.
When I was a kid about 10 years old I used to tell the other kids not to put someone down for their race, which was rare when I grew up, so maybe I would've. I think this thread proves I'm willing to go through a lot of work to defend what right and to argue angainst the perpetuation of slavery. Do you see anyone else here doing what I'm doing? I don't except for Non and Walt. Most would rather let your side continue their falsities, exaggerations, and omission of facts unchallenged. So it could be that I would've been a radical. I've certainly had a few death threats myself over other issues.
I've honestly never heard of this general. Who was he?
You prove my point perfectly. Your side spends so much time reading theories of the evil of a few northerners and those that you want to hate that you never get any other perspective and you drift far from the truth. You guys live for this stuff, you talk about it every day, you read books on it, but you never get to know much of the truth because you draw from one narrow perspective. You didn't know that confederate rapes were not reported and confederate rapists were not gone after in the confederate ranks like they were in the Union ranks. You've never heard of the general I just mentioned. I mentioned his story before on this thread asking for his name but no one will tell me. I'm sure your buddies know who he is and know his story but are not telling me. I can't remember his name because I don't live for this stuff like you guys do. They're not telling me his name because they're only interested in propaganda, not the full perspective.
I don't hate any Northern general, but my Georgia in-laws sure did (Sherman -- when their parents were children they saw Sherman's troops come through their farms). I strongly dislike the tactics of Northern generals Hunter, Sheridan, Sherman, Butler, Wild, and Grant because they made war on civilians.
Supplies. Do you dislike the tactics of Ike too then?
I don't like Federal General Foster because he caused the deaths of some of the 600 Confederate prisoners I mentioned by starving them, and it wasn't because of any restriction in food supply as you intimated. If you'll pardon me, that is a lame excuse in this case.
Given you guys exaggerations, one-sidedness, and omission of facts, I don't believe anything you say. But I have said the POWs were not treated well and there were murderers on both sides. So it's possible, but I'd have to see more perpective then your "some say" references.
What is it you feel I can't admit?
That POWs were not treated well.