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.
"Has" - current rights, "had" - past rights. Taney refers to a century of past rights. Not current or future.
FN 76. The opinion accompanies Taney's letter to Secretary of State Edward Livingston, May 28, 1832, Miscellaneous Letter, Department of State Papers, National Archives. The supplement accompanies Taney's letter to Livingston, Jun 9, 1832. See Carl B. Swisher, Roger B. Taney, New York, 1935), pp 151-159; Marvin Laurence Winitsky, "The Jurisprudence of Roger B. Taney," PhD dissertation, UCLA, 1973, pp 92-94. Says Fehrenbacher, "Thus Taney, in 1832, formulated the same harsh racial doctrine that he would proclaim from the bench twenty-five years later."
The idea that Taney was personally opposed to slavery is a myth. As Fehrenbacher demonstrated, the Taney myth runs deep in the pro-Taney literature, but has little or no basis in fact. Fehrenbacher notes:
"This legend of the antislavery Taney rests almost entirely upon two actions taken nearly 40 years before the Dred Scott decision. In 1818, he served as defense attorney for an abolitionist minister and in the process denounced slavery as an evil that must in time be "gradually wiped away." Beginning the same year, emancipated his own slaves to the number of at least eight. Whatever moral conviction may have encouraged these actions, it does not appear again in his public record or private correspondence. His attitude on the bench was consistently and solicitously proslavery. By 1857 he had become as fanatical in his determination to protect the institution as Garrison was in his determination to destroy it."