To: cougar_mccxxi
It also destroyed the idea of state's rights as they should be.
2 posted on
01/06/2005 8:01:19 AM PST by
MinstrelBoy
(What will you do without freedom?!)
To: cougar_mccxxi
A civil war is a struggle between two or more factions seeking to control the central government. I don't know where Dr. Williams get's his definition but every on-line dictionary I've checked defines a civil war as " war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Which is an accurate defintion of what happened.
5 posted on
01/06/2005 8:07:07 AM PST by
Non-Sequitur
(Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
To: cougar_mccxxi
First, although it was not President Lincoln's intent, it freed slaves in the Confederate States. Lincoln's first intent was to preserve the Union. However, Lincoln certainly did intend to free southern slaves when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.
14 posted on
01/06/2005 8:15:51 AM PST by
mac_truck
(Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
To: cougar_mccxxi
We basically went from:
The United States "Are", to
The United Stated "Is".
To: cougar_mccxxi
Live free or die - get government out of my life.
36 posted on
01/06/2005 8:35:54 AM PST by
sandydipper
(Less government is best government!)
To: cougar_mccxxi
Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C. than George Washington wanted to take over London in 1776. Technically, this is incorrect since Washington was certainly THE military objective of the South. It might be better to say that the South had no intent to conquer the North except in such a way as to dissuade aggression. But even that statement is meaningless since conquering the North was as out of the question for the South as conquering London was out of the question for Washington.
43 posted on
01/06/2005 8:42:20 AM PST by
Theophilus
(Save Little Democrats, Stop Abortion)
To: cougar_mccxxi
57 posted on
01/06/2005 8:56:08 AM PST by
spodefly
(This message packaged with desiccant. Do not open until ready for use or inspection.)
To: stainlessbanner; stand watie; RebelBanker; nolu chan
I thought you guys might be interested. This thread needs an injection of common sense and historical accuracy.
64 posted on
01/06/2005 9:02:12 AM PST by
CurlyBill
(The difference between Madeline Albright and Helen Thomas is a mere 15 years.)
To: cougar_mccxxi
First, although it was not President Lincoln's intent, it freed slaves in the Confederate States. This is incomplete. It was not Lincoln's original intent. It became his intent later, as the the cause of the slaves became his own. Lincoln underwent an ideological transition during his term, as second inaugural address makes clear.
To: cougar_mccxxi
To: cougar_mccxxi
When Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1861), raising tariffs to unprecedented levels, the South Carolina convention unanimously adopted and Ordinance of Secession... Oh brother! Can we pitch-in and buy poor Walter a calander? Maybe a 6th grade history book even?
103 posted on
01/06/2005 10:07:21 AM PST by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: cougar_mccxxi
The issue of slavery dominated the political debate in the 1850's and the Southern states seceded because Lincoln was elected President and was anti-slavery, even though he had no intention of pushing for immediate emancipation. (He hoped that restricting slavery in the territories would hasten it's demise in the South.) Any other reading of the history of the time is just dishonest.
The Beard thesis that all American history can be explained by economics has been debunked. It's really nothing more that the Marxist view of history in disguise. In American history, ideas matter, as the Democrats just learned again in 2004.
To: cougar_mccxxi
Dr.Williams nails yet another one.
Thanks for the post.
156 posted on
01/06/2005 1:32:45 PM PST by
lodwick
To: cougar_mccxxi
I am happy to bump another fine column by one of the few remaining, widely circulated, columnists in America with both integrity and common sense. Professor Williams has long defined important issues, both contemporary and historic, with a clarity that should help students of any age, tighten their own focus.
Thank you for posting this!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
187 posted on
01/06/2005 3:27:14 PM PST by
Ohioan
FR's resident southbashing posse will now stoop to slamming Walter Williams too in order to try to sate their insatiable appetite for moral superiority and sanctimonious arse-orifice-ness.
It never ends...social PC revisionists masquerading as "conservatives".
Walter Williams=Good Company
I'll take Walter Williams over a Morris Dees or Julian Bond any day. The South Bashers must love their comrades in arms.
"Worst Evil To Have Ever Existed"....signing off...lol
190 posted on
01/06/2005 3:39:26 PM PST by
wardaddy
(Quisiera ser un pez para tocar mi nariz en tu pecera)
To: cougar_mccxxi
Perhaps this is the biggest reason to be ticked off at those southern knuckleheads who tried to secede.
The perhaps worthy idea of secession became inextricably linked with slavery. If the critical issue had been something other than slavery, they probably would have gotten support from Europe, or maybe the North would not even have cared enough to stop them. Or the even better result is that the mere threat of secession would have acted as a brake on the federal government acquiring more power. We would have stayed a united country, but a far more free one because of the ever present threat of secession.
Instead, secession became tied to slavery, and died the same death. A real tragedy.
To: cougar_mccxxi
To: cougar_mccxxi
To: Calpernia
392 posted on
01/07/2005 4:36:58 PM PST by
Coleus
(Let us pray for the 125,000 + victims of the tsunami and the 126,000 aborted Children killed daily)
To: cougar_mccxxi
Dag blasted Lincoln lovers! Git yur fancy-talkin sweater wearin asses outta Dixie!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson