L.O.L!
Non-Sequitur, before his daily Lincoln prayer meeting.
Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
A contradiction of your earlier claim that Lee owned not a single one, wouldn't you agree? In any case, he also had the benefit of the slaves left from his father-in-law's estate and which he was the executor.
May God bless TX indeed!
Uh - no they don't
Secession need not lead to war. History shows your way leads to a bloody revolution. I might be good with that.
No contradiction. Lee had no slaves by the time the invasion from the north took place.
Many Southern volunteers had fought in the North, but no soldier from north of Pennsylvania (except a few generals) had ever fought in the South!
First of all, it depends on what you mean by "the North". Very few Southerners made their way to New England in the first phase of the war when there was fighting there. To his credit, Washington did, but South Carolinians and Georgians were as rare in the Massachusetts and Vermont fighting as New Englanders were in South Carolina battles.
Secondly, if Clyde were right, it would be because the British controlled New York and Philadelphia and the sea off shore for much of the war, so it would have been hard for New Englanders to get to the South. Also, most of the British troops and most of the fighting in the middle phase of the war happened in the Middle States, so Northern troops and Southern troops would have been engaged there. Even after fighting in the South got more intense, the bulk of the British army was or was expected to be in the Middle States, so Northern troops would still have been sent there.
But of course Clyde isn't right. Look at Yorktown. What would the result of the battle have been without the New Yorkers and Rhode Islanders? When it was clear that the result of the war hinged on fighting in Virginia, Washington's army, with its many Northerners, was there.
And those generals Clyde refers to in his parenthesis (Nathanael Greene? Benjamin Lincoln?) started out as common soldiers and made a real contribution to the war in the South (as did despised foreigners like Pulaski, Steuben, and d'Estaing).
The War of 1812, the Second War of Independence, was decisive for the seemingly permanent discrediting of New England. The Yankee ruling class opposed the war even though it was begun by Southerners on behalf of oppressed American seamen, most of whom were New Englanders. Yankees did not care about their oppressed poorer citizens because they were making big bucks smuggling into wartime Europe. One New England congressman attacked young patriot John C. Calhoun as a backwoodsman who had never seen a sail and who was unqualified to deal with foreign policy.
I guess they taught baby Clydie that in the publik skools. Land hunger had a lot to do with the War of 1812. Paleocon icon John Randolph certainly thought so. So did the Canadians. Recent historians have suggested that the war had more to do with British support for Indian tribes in the Northwest Territories than with the conquest of Canada. In any event, the war wasn't all about British impressment of American sailors, let alone an altruistic effort by Southerners to save Yankee seamen.
In the 1830s, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to Germany to study.
So far as I've been able to find out, Emerson didn't go to Germany at all, let alone to study. I suppose Clyde could say he meant it metaphorically, but there would have been better ways to phrase the idea. Some documentation would also have been helpful. Emerson studies are a vast field and one can doubt whether Clyde dipped very deeply into the study of Emerson's influences.
New Englanders, who were selling their products in a market from which competition had been excluded by the tariff, proclaimed that the low price of cotton was due to the fact that Southerners lacked the drive and enterprise of virtuous Yankees! (When the South was actually the productive part of the U.S. economy.)
Cotton prices were quite high during much of the antebellum days. An unbiased observer probably wouldn't agree with Clyde's indictment. With tariffs in place it was possible for Northerners and Southerners to develop infant industries. Northerners did so.
Southerners were slower to get started. The dream of buying land and slaves and taking advantage of high cotton prices was too compelling for many to open up workshops or factories with free labor.
If this was a self-righteous Northern attack on the South, it was also the self-righteous opinion of many Southerners, who couldn't see dirtying their hands with industry. Southern propagandists said as much at the time, and it takes some nerve now to deny the contempt of many well-to-do Southerners with productive labor.
Was the antebellum South the productive part of the economy? Maybe in a colonial way, taking advantage of climate and soil to provide raw materials for European manufacturers. But that was a recipe for dependence and ultimately poverty. Northerners couldn't grow cotton because of the climate, but they weren't wrong in thinking that real independence required native industries. In any case, just who was doing the producing in the antebellum Southern economy?
***
Clyde is doing his best to imitate a Southern propagandist of 1860 or 1890 (and not a very deep or scrupulous one either), focusing narrowly on his indictment and ignoring all contradictory information or evidence.
New England went into a long decline after the Civil War. Power shifted to New York and Chicago. New England didn't contribute much to Progressivism and the New Deal. The South did more to support Wilson and FDR than New England. To be sure the region did come back into prominence for a while in the 1960s and 1970s, when Kennedy was President and McCormack and O'Neill Speaker of the House (they weren't exactly Mayflower descendants, though), but Clyde is pulling one over on you.
He's making all of modernity Yankee, so that whatever happened in the North was part of an evil conspiracy of New Englanders. But it really doesn't fly. Progressives like LaFollette and Norris had little use for New England. Southerners like Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson made major contributions to American liberalism. But Clyde is so determined to oversimplify history into a battle between depraved Yankees and true sons of the South that he ignores the details.
You can't simply cut out the last 150 years, as though it were gangrene. Modernity and all the trends Clyde deplores are as much a part of life in Southern cities now as they are in any other part of the country. What he's complaining about didn't come from New England alone and wouldn't go away if we split into different countries.
Whereas Jefferson was for freedom for everyone to do whatever they wanted and go wherever they wanted?
Left alone, the southern states would have gradually began coming back to the Union and they would have dumped slavery without 50,000 men dying for that end.
And everyone would live happily ever after? Because neither side would impose conditions on the other? Because the Confederate leaders really didn't want power? Because Northerners would just decide to give the Southerners whatever they wanted?
The true slave master of the 1860s was Abraham Lincoln, a man who made slaves of the whole south for years and a man whose great idea for solving the slave problem was to send them all back to Africa, something modern historians are loath to mention.
Whereas Jefferson wanted Blacks to live among Whites as free men and women? That would be something historians have been loath to mention -- probably because it's not true.
Read Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia:
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.
That's not totally different from what Lincoln said -- but it goes a lot further and there are no indications that Jefferson ever changed his mind.
I do not know if i am for lincoln Or jefferson But i am against slavery, and we have to keep fighting against it because there are always some one or some group who think its their right to tell other people what to do.
He had 40-odd. Inherited from his father-in-law. Regardless, Lee didn't have any real problems with the institution to begin with.
So you think that in the end the confederate states would have come crawling back to the U.S. do you? Doesn't say much for your precious rebel leadership, does it? What about state's rights? What about government tyranny?
The true slave master of the 1860s was Abraham Lincoln, a man who made slaves of the whole south for years and a man whose great idea for solving the slave problem was to send them all back to Africa, something modern historians are loath to mention.
So you're saying that made Lincoln an evil, vile, loathsome individual? Golly, whatever would you think of someone who advocated this?
"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before. Insomuch, that our Governor has ventured to propose one to the legislature. This will probably not be acted on at this time. Nor would it be effectual; for while it proposes to devote to that object one third of the revenue of the State, it would not reach one tenth of the annual increase. My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to recieve them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions."
Care to speculate what racist said that?
Only portions of that number were called up before Lincoln's battlefleet reached South Carolina's waters.
"The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary," isn't that what you posted before? In the face of the rebel buildup then wouldn't the actions Lincoln took to preserve federal facilities and property be justified?
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did. When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed. I already mentioned he freed the slaves he inherited from his father. He lived in a time when slavery was legal and had not control over what either father did. He did have control over what he did and did not retain the slaves willed to him. Notably, some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
You are intent on destroying a man that leaders on both sides of the Potomac had great respect and admiration for. He was a decent man. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
He backstabbed Washington, and when president disregarded his own philosophy with the Louisiana Purchase and establishment of the Navy...two things he would have hammered Washington over had Washington been the one presiding over these things.
Lincoln and Washington...our two best.
Hush up,sissy!
I believe it was Governor Seymour that proclaimed:
“That after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of a military necessity of a war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution has been disregarded in every part. Justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for the cessation of hostilities, with the ultimate convention of all the States, that these may be restored on the basis of a federal union of all the States, that the direct interference of the military authorities in the recent elections was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and the repetition of such acts will be held as revolutionary, and resisted; that the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the federal union and the rights of the States unimpaired, and that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers, not granted by the Constitution, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union; that the shameful disregard of the administration in its duty to our fellow-citizens—prisoners of war—deserves the severest reprobation,”
L.O.L!
Non-Sequitur, before his daily Lincoln prayer meeting.
Name some.
When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed.
Again, incorrect. Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862. Lee didn't free the last of his slaves until December.
Notably, some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
Name one.
You are intent on destroying a man that leaders on both sides of the Potomac had great respect and admiration for.
Apparently you find the truth destructive. Maybe that's why you seem to be avoiding it.
He was a decent man.
So I've been told.
Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
Vigorously opposed slavery? Read that quote in context and the only thing Lee vigorously opposed was anyone interfering with slavery. Nine years later Lee was writing, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both."
Washington was man enough to secede from a Tyrannical Government.Lincoln cursed us with one.
Better be careful with the “Navy” talk. N-S is a Navy man himself.
The fact that Gen. Lee trusted God more than men is all that is learned in the quote you cite. You will not be swayed by any history of Lees efforts to end slavery. You are only satisfied to play God as your heroes did and kill those that God himself never commanded to cease in this miserable institution. God taught that all men should be content and to honor Him in whatever their position was. He taught slaves to love and obey their masters. He taught slave holders to love and respect their slaves. And he worked on our hearts through His Word and Providence. He taught us how to change hearts. It was not by bullets and bombs, brothers against brothers.
The pen of one of Gen. Lee’s freed slaves will no doubt be denied by you. The Rev. William Mack Lee said this, “I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.” William Mack cooked for General Lee’s Confederate troops throughout the war. He stayed with him, because he loved and respected him.
Probably because Mack Lee was a fraud. Take a look at this quote from his book:
"The onliest time that Marse Robert ever scolded me," said William Mack Lee, "in de whole fo' years dat I followed him through the wah, was, down in de Wilderness--Seven Pines-- near Richmond. I remembah dat day jes lak it was yestiday. Hit was July the third, 1863."
"On dat day--July the third--we was all so hongry and I didn't have nuffin in ter cook, dat I was jes' plumb bumfuzzled. I didn't know what to do. Marse Robert, he had gone and invited a crowd of ginerals to eat wid him, an' I had ter git de vittles. Dar was Marse Stonewall Jackson, and Marse A. P. Hill, and Marse D. H. Hill, and Marse Wade Hampton, Gineral Longstreet, and Gineral Pickett and sum others."
On July 3rd, 1863 Lee was nowhere near Richmond. He was outside of Gettysburg getting ready to massacre Picket's men against the Union center.
Douglas Southall Freeman in his biography of Lee goes into detail on the members of Lee's headquarters. He mentions other servants of Lee. He doesn't mention Mack Lee.
And?
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.