Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?
Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander
Btw, Happy Thanksgiving all! :-)
The only thing going on was that the slavers lost an election and (needlessly) feared losing power. They were set on a course and would be swayed by reason or compromise.
I was wondering how long it would take you to show up here. :)
You call it "revisionism", I call it "Following the money."
You want to know the truth about anything? Follow the money. Why don't you like following the money BroJoe?
New York State is the "Empire State" because of the civil war. That conflict kept the money stream concentrated in New York City, and that's why New York City is the financial headquarters of the world today.
The war was about money Bro. This money.
You are ignoring the fact that it was a Constitutional amendment, not a bill. And that as president there was nothing that Lincoln could do to further it or hinder it or impact it in any way.
The cause which was lost was the "consent of the governed" as outlined by the Declaration four score and seven years before the idea was expectorated by the government who's foundation it was.
The Declaration gives all people the right to be independent and to form a government that suits their interests, you know, the way the 13 slave owning colonies did.
Canada was the smart one. They never joined in the first place.
Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Serious reading. I waded through it about 20 years ago. Changed my view on the CW dynamic.
Davis's Thanksgiving Proclamation
Sorry. I Couldn't resist either.
You don't think a President can have any impact on a constitutional amendment by coming out in favor of it?
So what then of Lincoln's pushing of the 13th amendment? Was all his wheedling, bribing and threatening of no effect on that amendment?
I thought there was a recent movie about Lincoln, the entire premise of which is that the President got the 13th amendment passed with tricks, bribes and threats, despite all opposition. (And a very near thing it was too, according to the movie.)
It gave me some insight into things that I had never previously considered. For example, that "freedom" in Europe was the consequence of the aristocracy discovering that people who thought they were free actually produced more goods and services which the aristocracy could tax and exploit.
If that is the real reason Europe ended feudal serfdom, then it also explains a lot about what is happening now.
And yes, the money information turns the Northern Civil War claims on their head.
If so then it didn't work very well, did it?
I thought there was a recent movie about Lincoln, the entire premise of which is that the President got the 13th amendment passed with tricks, bribes and threats, despite all opposition.
Some people look for support for their positions from the works of historians like Ayers, McPherson, Catton, Pohanka, Sears, or Trudeau. You get your support from the works of historians like Stephen Spielberg. Not surprising.
:)
Read Lincoln’s inaugural address.
Thank you, BroJoe, for a thoughtful criticism of Diogenes’ posts. However, I fear I must temper your response and references to what you learned in school with this quote from Gen Patrick Cleburne before he was killed at Nashville:
“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”
Nonsense. Just look at the titles in post #171 - the losers of this conflict have had an unequaled opportunity to share their perspective.
Your quote begs an old axiom: “The winners write the history, but the losers write the mythology”
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data on that?
As always, you misunderstand Lincoln.
What he actually said was:
Lincoln believed that such an amendment at that time would merely make express what the Constitution then implied.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The South didn't pay any heed to this, which shows that there were other issues going on between the two sections besides slavery."
In fact, for over four months -- from November 1860 to March 1861 -- many "compromise" proposals were forwarded in Congress and among various states, all with the thought of enticing Deep South secessionists back into the Union.
None -- zero, zip, nada -- had any effect or received any positive response from Confederates.
So the fact is that nothing was going to change their course at that time.
However, on the question of what drove Deep South Fire Eaters to declare their secession in the first place, they themselves were 100% clear on the subject, at the time.
It was to protect their "peculiar institution" slavery against abolitionist "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans, pure and simple.
Only long after the fact did they begin to suspect other reasons might also be convenient to put out, and so they started concocting cockamamie nonsense for distribution to gullible useful idiots like our own DiogenesLamp DL, & others.
Nonsense like: "New Yorkers were stealing Southern wealth."
The real fact is that nearly 80% of Southern cotton shipped directly from Gulf Coast ports to their European customers, not through New York as DL pretends.
That's one reason why the economic Panic of 1857 affected Southerners less than other regions.
They were not as tied into the New York financial world as others were, and didn't suffer when it collapsed in 1857.
So, yet another piece of DL's Lost Causer mythology bites the dust.
Does DL care? Naw, he's a devoted propagandist and facts don't matter to him in the least.
So you offer up Lost Causer mythology infused with Marxist dialectics and you fanaticize that makes sense.
It doesn't.
The fact is that you exaggerate for propaganda purposes both the cause (money) and the effect (motive for war), while ignoring any historically inconvenient facts (i.e., Confederate assault on Fort Sumter).
DiogenesLamp: "New York State is the "Empire State" because of the civil war."
More cockamamie rubbish.
In fact, George Washington first called New York "the Seat of the Empire" in 1785, a time when New York was the nation's capital.
The term "Empire State" was used widely since at least the 1820s, so had nothing to do with the Civil War.
DiogenesLamp: "The war was about money Bro. This money."
Only in your Marxist trained fantasies.
In fact, none of the participants at the time said anything such thing, and they would know their own minds better than you or your Uncle Karl.
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.