The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Davy Buck]

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

[rockrr]

Wow, you really hate losing, don’t you?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Wouldn't it be ironic to use a supreme court justice's statement (who was BORN in 1924) that habeus corpus had "never been determined" while ignoring a supreme court justice's ruling at the time of the events?>

I note that you chose the words carefully. Taney's opinion in Merryman was not a Supreme Court decision, but rather was in his capacity as a circuit court judge. The Supreme Court has never spoken to the issue. Rehnquist's statement stands.

Wouldn't it be ironic to defend your point by saying h.c. had never been determined while not acknowledging AT THE VERY LEAST the same lack of determination could be said for secession?

Texas v. White was the first time that secession came before the Supreme Court. The court said that it was illegal.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Care to point out which associate judge, district judge, or marshalls claimed such duress to thus authorize him?

If not, can you please defend your point that he was authorized under this act? (Maybe he was, but i haven't seen it yet)

You're quoting the 1792 Act. The 1795 Act superseded it and has no such requirement.

[southernsunshine]

You’ve stayed reasonable and rational while your opponents have been increasingly condescending, contradictory, and convoluted

LOL! Seems you would have us believe left is right, up is down, the sky is green......

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

yet that IS NOT WHY Lincoln waged war on them! SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

You go first. What's your point? You've been all over the place.

So all those men fighting in the "noble war" ran as soon as their CONSCRIPTIONS were up!

The United States Army began conscription in March, 1863 (almost a full year after the confederates instituted a draft). That would make it three months AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. Conscriptions ran three years. So any conscript who "ran" after his conscription was up was doing so after the war's end.

[rockrr]

It would appear that some here are fully capable of that without any assistance from me.

[southernsunshine]

rockrr said: “Wow, you really hate losing, don’t you?”

Losing? LOL! More like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Rut0BJsyk
(Carlos Santana - Winning)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Unfortunately, your boy Lincoln didn't give a rat's turd about emancipating anyone when he waged his war.

And yet there he is, signing the Emancipation Proclamation and pushing for the 13th Amendment.

Nor did he during the war for anyone in the "non-rebellious" areas of the United States when he issued his proclamation.

Sigh. Do we really have to do this one again? Fine. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued under Lincoln's authority as commander in chief and therefore could only apply to those areas in rebellion. As he said many times before, he had no authority to interfere with slavery in areas not in rebellion. For that, a constitutional amendment would be required. Lincoln pushed for one, but the Copperhead Democrats in Congress wouldn't give him the supermajority that a proposed amendment requires. The November, 1864 election would have given the Republicans enough votes to pass such an amendment in the Congress that would convene in March, 1865, but before that could happen a few lame duck Democrats switched sides and joined the Republicans to pass the 13th, sending it to the states.

Seriously, you guys bitch about what a dictator Lincoln was, then you bitch that he should have been more dictatorial.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I know I named Spooner, but he was never actually a Republican, much less a leader. Heywood could hardly be termed a Repubican leader, since he never held an office in his life. And Garrison, likewise, wasn't a Republican leader. You're conflating the hardcore abolitionist anarchists with the Republican leadership.

I don't have time for the rest of your list right now, but I'm very curious to see where you can find Charles Francis Adams supporting secession. Certainly his speech in Congress in January, 1861 shows no such support.

[phi11yguy19]

And yet there he is, signing the Emancipation Proclamation and pushing for the 13th Amendment...AND still trying to colonize the blacks in Panama weeks before his death...ALL of which still has nothing to do with invading florida and south carolina while telling them he wanted peace. It's good for you though, because so long as you keep ignoring history, it's however you want it to be - just like a fairy tale!

Seriously, you guys bitch about what a dictator Lincoln was, then you bitch that he should have been more dictatorial.

Welcome back, captain strawman! So which one of "us guys" said he should've been "more dictatorial"? No matter, at least now we're all discussing DEGREE of dictatorship, so at least there's some progress.

So if you can't respond intelligently to any of our points, just ignore lincoln's racist and didtatorial words and actions, create some fake words FOR us that you can respond to, tell us how wrong our fake words are, then go back to feeling you're well informed again. You win the argument every time (but you lose at life). Win the battle, lose the war.

And strawmen arguments with "b!tch" this and "b!tch" that almost sound "condescending, contradictory, and convoluted". I think you owe your fanboy an apology.

[phi11yguy19]

So when you said "the United States army did not force men to stay in uniform after their initial enlistments were up", you were accurate? men joined when they thought the war was over "union". lincoln issues the emancipation, and everyone balks (except maybe your ansestors who knew all along what the war was REALLY about). since his "new" cause wasn't the one anyone wants to fight for, he has to use conscription to force people to kill each other so he can keep his precious "union" and tax base intact. nyc riots ensue. there's only one "good" man in the whole war, and that man's name was abraham lincoln.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

AND still trying to colonize the blacks in Panama weeks before his death.

Are you still holding onto the idea that slavery is no worse than emancipation and colonization? Are you saying that colonization is evil?

Incidentally, what you'll never find is any indication that Lincoln favored a system of forcible deportation of freed slaves.

which one of "us guys" said he should've been "more dictatorial"?

You were the one making a big deal about the Emancipation Proclamation not covering areas not in rebellion. Doesn't that mean that you think it should have?

[phi11yguy19]

funny, YOUR OWN EXAMPLE doesn’t fit YOUR OWN STANDARDS. can’t say i saw that one coming!

actually, i guess i did. since i knew you’d easily dismiss my ploy to “conflate” statesmen including congressmen (giddings) and presidential candidates (fremont) with men up to your standard of Republican “leadership” (can’t get anything by you!), AND since i was worried that instead of 3 you actually meant THREE HUNDRED, i directed you to OVER THREE HUNDRED names of statesmen (ya know, people in positions of republican LEADERSHIP) as presented by giddings on the house floor. 300+ men who, ya know, helped get Lincoln elected in the first place.

but it’s fine. if you ask for 3 names, and i give you around 345 (in a few minutes research), all you have to do is simply disagree with ONE of those names, and that name and ALL the others magically disappear from history! maybe they’re locked up with all of lincoln’s unicorns and cherubs.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So when you said "the United States army did not force men to stay in uniform after their initial enlistments were up", you were accurate?

Yes, I was. The men who enlisted in 1861 were not forced to remain in the army after their 3 years were up. Well more than half did choose to reenlist, even after three hard years of fighting, a figure comparable to current US Army reenlistment rates . A draft was established in 1863, but less then ten percent of US Army soldiers were draftees (or subsitutes). Men who had served as enlistees and been released at the end of their three years were not subject to the draft. Some did become paid substitutes for other draftees.

But since you're attributing enlistments, reenlistments and draft rates with support for war aims and policies what do you have to say about the confederacy's refusal to let to its men go home after their enlistments were up, unilaterally extending them indefinitely, the fact that the south went to a draft earlier, that conscripts made up a far larger portion of the southern army than the US Army, and that desertion rates were much higher?

[phi11yguy19]

what you'll never find is any indication that Lincoln favored a system of forcible deportation of freed slaves.

You mean EXCEPT for the colonization department he instituted in the department of interior to DEPORT them to central america, africa and asia (i.e. ANYWHERE but the U.S.)??? Doesn't it get old being wrong all the time?

You must forget this is the same Great Emancipator who said in his presidential debates with Douglass:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

(Please ignore the above quote. It makes you look ignorant.)

You were the one making a big deal about the Emancipation Proclamation not covering areas not in rebellion. Doesn't that mean that you think it should have?

The "big deal" was pointing out that the emancipation wasn't about "freeing" anyone as you've stressed about a dozen times here and just won't let go. They weren't to become citizens - the act was an attempt to weaken the South's economy (since they were winning the war at the time) while trying to gain international favor (which was also leaning towards the south).

Please don't try to do my thinking for me - you're having enough trouble doing your own.

[phi11yguy19]

i can’t understand why men on either side wouldn’t want to kill each other and conscription was ever needed, but since i’m good with math and equations, tell me if i’m on the right path, ok?...

(ratio of times the word “slavery” used in secession ordinances)
+
(ratio of southern to northern conscripts)
+
(# of republicans in favor of peaceful disunion)
+
(# of things we lost causers can “never find” examples of)

=

(1 man who was the furthest thing from a dictator and was forced into a war by radical rebels - even though he’d have done it anyway of course to appease his moral objections to slavery)
+
(1 self righteous student of the cult of lincoln)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Giddings by the way presented a list of 329 Northern representatives to Congress in 1856 "praying for a dissolution of the Union"

This is very impressive, considering that in 1856 there were only 234 representatives in the entire Congress.

[phi11yguy19]

no, what is impressive is your lack of ability to research on your own. they were representatives from the states. did you know the states each had their own form of republican governments as guaranteed by the constitutions, each with their own cute little statesmen?

i’d provide you the link to the original source (again), but unfortunately the tutor left the room, so you’re stuck with the obscure clues i left - like the congressman’s name and the time and place of his report.

showing your work counts for 50% of this test and you can’t afford any more F’s.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You mean EXCEPT for the colonization department he instituted in the department of interior to DEPORT them to central america, africa and asia (i.e. ANYWHERE but the U.S.)???

None of which shows an intent to forcibly deport.

As for Lincoln's racist statements, I don't deny them. But I'll also say that his views evolved and in one of his last speeches he talked about giving freed slaves the vote. John Wilkes Booth, hearing that speech, decided to kill him.

The "big deal" was pointing out that the emancipation wasn't about "freeing" anyone as you've stressed about a dozen times here and just won't let go. They weren't to become citizens - the act was an attempt to weaken the South's economy (since they were winning the war at the time) while trying to gain international favor (which was also leaning towards the south).

How, then, do you explain Lincoln's abolition of slavery in DC in 1862 and his support for the 13th Amendment? As for the south winning the war in January, 1863, it's hard to see how. They'd lost bloodily at Antietam, the confederate invasion of Kentucky had been turned back, New Orleans was in US hands, the Vicksburg Campaign was underway and the blockade was strangling them. And foreign recognition of the confederacy was never as imminent as some would have you believe. So exactly what was going the south's way?

Doesn't it get old being wrong all the time?

Pretty rich coming from you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

i’d provide you the link to the original source (again), but unfortunately the tutor left the room, so you’re stuck with the obscure clues i left - like the congressman’s name and the time and place of his report.

You didn't provide a link. You cited a book with no page number. Give me a page number and I'll do the rest.

What I did find was Giddings submitting a petition from Pennsylvania quakers, not northern state representatives, praying for a peaceful dissolution of the union in 1850, not 1856.