Post the text of where I "advocated" that. And while you're at it, justify your "623,000 of our finest men died" statement. Cite your source for that hyperbole.
As I mentioned to stand, I don't see the need to press the abuse button. I can handle you guys just fine without the moderators' help. It seems that some of you are not equally up to the job and run to the moderators because you are unable to dominate the discussion with your off-the-wall theories. Stop acting like a bunch of sissies and step up to the plate.
" In fact, the quote you allege Taney made is wrong and has been documented as such."
If what you refer to the text of Taney's internal opinion as Atty Gen. in the Jackson Cabinet, I can assure you it is 100% factual. If this is the one, I will give you the source and the original citation. Taney may have held some higher ethical values as a younger man, but by the time he was in the Jackson Administration, and later as Chief Justice, he was as racist and unethical as they come.
Certainly:
In short, whatever Lincoln felt was necessary to snuff out the insurrection was proper and justified. "Wanton" violence was improper, but ultimately, the judge of the degree of violence necessary can only be the belligerent. The fact that we have latter-day neo-rebs (or unreconstructed rebels by birth!) on this forum suggests to me that Lincoln and the Armies of the North and West did an inadequate job "to secure the object of the hostilities." [emphaise mine]And while you're at it, justify your "623,000 of our finest men died" statement. Cite your source for that hyperbole.1,251 posted on 09/16/2004 1:49:54 PM EDT by capitan_refugio [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Most historians and sources place the direct casualties (battlefield deaths/latter death from wounds) of the war somewhere between 600,000 and 640,000. The one I commonly saw was 623,000+, another has it at 624,000+. In case your having problems comprehending "our finest men", it refers to those of both sides, not just Confederates.
It seems that some of you are not equally up to the job and run to the moderators because you are unable to dominate the discussion with your off-the-wall theories. Stop acting like a bunch of sissies and step up to the plate.
I've been here for years, providing sources and documentation.
If what you refer to the text of Taney's internal opinion as Atty Gen. in the Jackson Cabinet, I can assure you it is 100% factual.
Putting that issue aside for a moment, in #1558 you had responded to GOPCapitalist:
You have never answered a question I posed. Do you believe that Taney was correct when he said, "The negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect"? [emphasis mine]I responded in #1564:
You quote is not found in the text [*I'm shocked*] The correct citation is this:Referring to your assertion in #1591 that Taney as AG was racist, both nolu chan and myself responded. In #1593 nolu chan wrote "[a]n interpretation of what the law says is not the same as one's personal opinion." In #1595 I wrote the "statement is not his personal opinion, it's a statement regarding the factual, legal condition of blacks in the United States of America." We both then cited from his defense of Rev. Gruber, where Taney stated, "while it continues it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away." Hardly the words of a man pining for it's continuation, in fact, Taney looked forward to the time it ended, "when we can point without a blush, to the language of the Declaration of Independence [ALL mean are created equal]".But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." [emphasis in original]Taey [sic] is NOT maintaining the position you attribute to him [*I'm shocked*], but noting that for the past century every European nation had done so.