You are a lunatic. Why wasn't Davis tried for treason? He demanded a trial.
I am perfectly aware that the story of Jefferson Davis in a dress was wartime propaganda started, most likely, from a story in Harpers weekly. I posted it to “get your goat” as it were.
However, I find it laughable that you would talk about a hate ceiling. When your side continues to to call Lincoln a tyrant and using other disparaging remarks against Grant and Sherman.
Do I hate Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leaders of the confederacy? I hate what they stood for and the ideas they espoused. I believe they were all traitors and should have been tried by military tribunal and then hung by the neck until dead. I think President Lincoln’s policy of letting them up easy was wrong and eventually lead to African Americans being treated as worse than 2nd class citizens for the next 100 years. Though this status was substantially better than being a slave.
I actually am thankful that the southern fire eaters did rebel because in doing so they unwittingly hasten the demise of slavery. I believe without their actions we would have had slavery in the United States well into the 20th century. This would have made a mockery of our Declaration of Independence.
Thankfully they did rebel and they lost. This lead to the end of slavery with the passage of the 13th Amendment. This amendment finally reconciled the constitution with the Declaration of Independence and gave truth to the founders assertion “that all men are created equal.”
You are a lunatic. Why wasn't Davis tried for treason? He demanded a trial.
I am sorry I disappointed you by ignoring it.
I believe you misunderstand me. I am not pro-Jefferson Davis, but rather anti-Lincoln.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "However, I find it laughable that you would talk about a hate ceiling. When your side continues to to call Lincoln a tyrant and using other disparaging remarks against Grant and Sherman."
I tend to call a thug a thug, rather a thug a ballet dancer.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Do I hate Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leaders of the confederacy? I hate what they stood for and the ideas they espoused. I believe they were all traitors and should have been tried by military tribunal and then hung by the neck until dead."
If you hate traitors, then you hate Lincoln and his merry gang of thugs.
It appears you believe Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution rather than the written words of the document, and the notes of the convention in which it was constructed. I was blessed that I became a Constitutional History buff before becoming a Civil War buff, so I was not so easily fooled by the mischaracterizations of Lincoln by his scholarly ideologues.
Over the years I came to understand why the Hard-Left Elites are in love with Lincoln's memory. He was above all a central planner, and his economic platform was similar to the modern plans of Obama and Clinton, which were fiat-monetized, crony-capitalist, pay-for-play economics. I cringe every time I read one of the Lincoln history groupies claim he was a capitalist. He was anti-capitalist.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I think President Lincoln’s policy of letting them up easy was wrong and eventually lead to African Americans being treated as worse than 2nd class citizens for the next 100 years. Though this status was substantially better than being a slave."
From what I have read, with minor exceptions, blacks were treated worse in the North than in the South. Those were also de Tocqueville observations, as aforementioned, and reposted here, in part:
"In the part of the Union where Negroes are no longer slaves, have they drawn nearer to whites? Every man who has lived in the United States will have noted that an opposite effect has been produced. [{In no part of the Union are the two races as separated as in New [England (ed.)] [v: the North].}]
"Racial prejudice seems to me stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where slavery still exists, and nowhere does it appear as intolerant as in the states where servitude has always been unknown…
"In nearly all the states where slavery is abolished, the Negro has been given electoral rights; but if he presents himself to vote, he risks his life. Oppressed, he can make a complaint, but he finds only whites among his judges. The law opens the juror 's seat to him, but prejudice pushes him away from it. His son is excluded from the school where the descendant of the European goes to be instructed. In the theaters he cannot, even at the price of gold, buy the right to sit next to the one who was his master; in the hospitals he lies apart. The Black is allowed to beseech the same God as the whites, but not to pray to him at the same altar. He has his priests and his churches. The gates of heaven are not closed to him: but inequality scarcely stops at the edge of the other world. When the Negro is no more, his bones are thrown aside, and the difference in conditions is found again even in the equality of death.
"Thus the Negro is free, but he is not able to share either the rights or the pleasures or the labors or the pains or even the tomb of the one whose equal he has been declared to be; he cannot meet him anywhere, either in life or in death.
"[{What miserable mockery this is.}]
"In the South where slavery still exists, Negroes are less carefully kept aside; they sometimes share the labors of whites and their pleasures; to a certain point they are permitted to mix with them. Legislation is more harsh in their regard; habits are more tolerant and milder. In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave up to his level, because he knows that if he wishes he will always be able to throw him back into the dust. In the North the white no longer distinctly sees the barrier that should separate him from a degraded race, and he withdraws with all the more care from the Negro because he fears that someday he will merge with him…
"This is how in the United States the prejudice that pushes Negroes away seems to increase proportionately as Negroes cease to be slaves, and how inequality becomes imprinted in the mores as it fades in the laws. But if the relative position of the two races that inhabit the United States is as I have just shown, why have the Americans abolished slavery in the north of the Union, why do they keep it in the south, and what causes them to aggravate its rigors there?
"It is easy to answer. Slavery is being destroyed in the United States not in the interest of the Negroes, but in that of the whites."
[de Tocqueville, Alexis, "Democracy in America." 2010, pp.553-556]
A careful reading of those paragraphs indicates that the LESS contact the person had with the blacks, the MORE racist he was. Several Northern states even had prohibitions against black immigration -- to keep them OUT!
"The nature of restrictionist legislation varied from state to state. Several states required from incoming Negroes certificates proving their freedom and attesting to their citizenship in another state. Connecticut forbade, without the approval of civil authorities, the establishment of any educational institution for the instruction of non-resident Negroes. Most of the new states, particularly those carved out of the Northwest Territory, either explicitly barred Negroes or permitted them to enter only after they had produced certified proof of their freedom and had posted a bond, ranging from $500 to $1,000, guaranteeing their good behavior. If enforced, this requirement alone [the bond] would have amounted to practical exclusion. Violators were subject to expulsion and fine, the non-payment of which could result in their being whipped, hired out, or, under the Illinois statute of 1853, advertised and sold at public auction. Residents, white or Negro, who employed such persons or encouraged them to remain in the state were subject to heavy fines.
"Three states – Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon – incorporated anti-immigration provisions into their constitutions. The electorates, voting on these provisions separately, indicated their overwhelming approval at the polls. Voters indorsed the Illinois constitutional clause barring the further admission of Negroes by a margin of more than two to one, most of the opposition coming from northern counties in which there were few Negroes. Indianans gave a larger majority to the restriction clause than to the constitution itself, and Oregon approved exclusion by an eight-to-one majority. The popular mandate thus seemed clear. "The tendency, strong and irresistible, of the American mind," an Indianan declared, "is finally to accomplish a separation of the two races."
[Leon F. Litwack, "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.71-72]
Note: the $500 to 1,000 entry bond was analogous to a poll tax.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I actually am thankful that the southern fire eaters did rebel because in doing so they unwittingly hasten the demise of slavery. I believe without their actions we would have had slavery in the United States well into the 20th century. This would have made a mockery of our Declaration of Independence."
Many scholars believe that slavery would have eventually disappeared on its own. The legacy of Lincoln's war is a century or more of racial hatred and separation, that lingers even today; not to mention the misery Lincoln's racist invaders caused the Southern blacks during their marches of terror. They were not the "deliverers" historian make them out to be.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Thankfully they did rebel and they lost. This lead to the end of slavery with the passage of the 13th Amendment. This amendment finally reconciled the constitution with the Declaration of Independence and gave truth to the founders assertion “that all men are created equal.”
Frederick Douglass would disagree:
"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
"He was pre-eminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the States where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed constitutional guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave States. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You [whites] are the children of Abraham Lincoln."
[Douglass, Frederick, "Oration by Frederick Douglass - unveiling of the Freedman's monument in memory of Abraham Lincoln." Pathway Press, 1940, pp.12-13]
If you need a hero, try George Washington, who could have remained President for life, but stepped down after two terms, setting a precedent that lasted until Red Franklin took the helm.
Mr. Kalamata
Sentence first - verdict afterwards!