Posted on 12/15/2008 9:10:08 AM PST by mft112345
My point was he saved our form of democracy not that he was democratic.
No, I never anywhere said I honored him for subverting the Constitution, those are your words not mine. I honor him for saving our country not that he was democratic.
Welcome, newbie, to the graduate seminar on the war.
Thanks but I am not clear on your meaning, can you enlighten me, I am always up for learning, one reason I come to this site.
McPherson has a nice account of how effective the iron fist of Jefferson Davis operated through the person of General Winder. Stalin was careful to observe legal niceties also. I know people like Governor Brown of Georgia did not seem to appreciate the benign rule of President Davis.
But it's gratifying to see that Jeff was able to get some honest work out of the the reb congress. The reb congressman I've read the most about, W H Tibbs of Tennessee, seemed to spend most of his time in Richmond buying slaves for resale back home. Having Tibbs represent you in congress was a pretty sad fate but it was mitigated by he happy fact that when he was in Richmond he couldn't extort money from you and help hunt down and jail your innocent neighbors.
Howdy Cuz and welcome to the Family!
Don't miss the point that 1847 was just thirteen years before the south began to secede. If what Lincoln taught was good doctrine in 1847, why not in 1860? And, did not "any people, anywhere" take in the people of the South?
Little wonder that an English historian, Goldwyn Smith, commented that Southern secession could not have asked a clearer supporter than this statement by Lincoln.
There was no right to secede unilaterally so Lincoln didn't trample on anything.
In 1847, Lincoln said on the floor of the Congress: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."
Lincoln was talking about rebellion. And he acknowledged there was no sacred right to being successful, hence the 'having the power' part. So the South did indeed try their rebellion. And they got trounced. Sorry it didn't work out the way you had hoped.
Little wonder that an English historian, Goldwyn Smith, commented that Southern secession could not have asked a clearer supporter than this statement by Lincoln.
Probably because Goldwyn Smith didn't read any of Lincoln's writings, in context.
So did Jeff Davis. And he did it before Lincoln.
Newbies are people new to the site. Often spelled “noobie.”
Over the years, these War Between The States threads have gotten into a lot more historical detail than a typical history class in college. We delve into the Constitution and what it means (or meant back then) as well as discuss facts about the war and events leading to it. I’ve certainly learned a lot from these threads, for which I am grateful to the posters from both sides.
No reason why we can’t get along. It was a ‘civil’ war after all.
Oh I know what a newbie is, I have been here under other names since the Bill Clinton Arkanside list came out.
Shameless plug.....I think you would all enjoy reading this book which covers a lot of the CW in the ‘western’ theater and many unknown heroes.
http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/
Here everybody respects the Constitution, albeit with widely varying views about it. I suspect there would be a stark contrast with a Civil War thread on Democratic Underground.
Let’s look at what McPherson says in his book, Battle Cry of Freedom (page 434):
General John H Winder, provost marshal of the Richmond district, created an efficient but ruthless corps of military police. In addition to banning the sale of liquor, establishing a pass system, arresting drunken soldiers, gamblers, pickpockets, and thieves, Winder jailed without trial several "disloyal" citizens including two women and John Minor Botts, a venerable Virginia unionist and former U.S. congressman.
McPherson has always seemed a bit partisan for my taste. McPherson didn't mention that after arresting Botts for supposedly being the head of an active anti-Confederate organization on the word of an informer, at Botts' request Winder held a court of inquiry concerning his arrest and released Botts as a result of it. Botts served as his own attorney, IIRC. Here is a mention of the trial in the Official Records. [Source]
[April] 9, 1862. - A court of inquiry ordered in the case of Honorable John Minor Botts, of Virginia, arrested as a suspect by the Confederate authorities.
Agreed!
thanks for the clarification
o look who jumped on another one of these threads
ARF
I think when you know the background of him then he’s not so controversial.
I do agree however with you and I mentioned him earlier
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.