Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
But yes, Grant did own a slave for a little less than a year. I don't think anyone denies that. He was given to Grant by his father-in-law, and when Grant moved to Illinois he manumitted the slave rather than sell him. In spite of the fact that Grant was in debt at the time. So what's your point?
Not really. Though you are getting tiresome.
Well, for two-thirds of the population anyway.
Yes and the Union fought to enslave all but the North East elites. History has shown the Lincoln and his friends killed the US Constitution.
“Walter Williams and Thomas DiLorenzo illustrate the gross errors possible when economists meddle in history. Power mad secessionists don’t show up well on a demand curve.”\
You venal, self-serving, holier-than-thou zealots would Tar & Feather Jesus himself if he criticized your “glorious Union” or it’s ring leader Lincoln!
There is no point that the war which was all about ending slavery was conducted by a slave owning General on the abolishnist's side. No point to that at all. No point that a Post Civil War President actually owned another human being at one time, yeah, no point there either.
You don’t know how to spell “Southern,” for starters.
That's not at all clear. For most of the century when the South voted Democrat, Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency.
The recent Republican collapse in the Northeast and the West Coast was a reaction to perceived Southern dominance in the country. Under other circumstances sanity would have prevailed as it did under Eisenhower and Reagan.
It's the same way with the South. Y'all can be free market and conservative because the opposite position is identified with the evil Yankee. If y'all were on your own a lot of you would take other positions, as indeed was the case back in the days of the solidly Democratic South.
The Union had a higher population and vastly higher industrial capability, you know that. The Union could afford to do what they did—grind the Confederacy down in a four-year war of attrition because the South simply could not continue to compete in a long-term industrial war with high losses. Once England and/or France refused to side with the Confederacy, the war could only be “won” by the Confederacy if the Union’s nerve broke. Lincoln’s did not break despite all the early setbacks, and eventually he found generals with the same resolve and also the skill to back it up.
Your argument’s specious, and from other posts I’ve seen on here, you’re smart enough to know that.
Although y’all were pretty incompetent for a chunk of the war. I mean, c’mon, McClellan? You gotta admit.
}:-)4
You've come in late. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a Free Republic means just that, any state can leave without the consent of the others. Or do we live in a Constitutional Empire, nobody leaves or else.
Nobody here is arguing free market etc.
Free Republic or Constitutional Empire, you pick.
hehehe! :)
The other section didn’t count at the time.
You would do better to stay in Kansas.
Scumbag to some.....Booth made a big mistake by not taking out Lincoln in 1861.
I am neither glad nor sad that the South is part of the U.S., and find your claims for conservative standard-bearer credentials very amusing. The South was solidly Democratic until the 60's and didn't come over to the Republican camp until you found that you could do so and still keep your big spending, big government ways. So with you or without you, it doesn't matter to me. We long time conservatives don't need what passes for Southern leadership to uphold our core conservative principles.
As for Lincoln's non-PC statements, here are a couple
Again, PC by today's standards. Would Jefferson or Davis or Lee or Jackson stand up any better from a PC standpoint? Should you not be condemning them as racists as well? Damning them for the vile bigots that they are? Or is Lincoln the only one you care about being politically correct?
And I didn't even include some of the things he said during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where he opposed negro voting, negroes on juries, intermarriage, negro social equality, and many other things.
But let's look at one other thing Lincoln did say in the Lincoln Douglas debates. First debate in Ottawa, Lincoln's rebuttal to Douglas's claim that he wanted perfect equality between the races: "...but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Now put this in context. It's 1858. Two years earlier Roger Taney had declared that no black person, free or slave, was or could ever be a citizen. That blacks had no rights whatsoever that a white man was bound to respect. And in the face of that Lincoln argues that in some areas there was equality between the races, that the black man was entitled to the same basic rights as a white man. That one quote alone placed him far apart from Douglas in terms of racial viewpoint, and put him head and shoulders above your Southern leadership. Or can you show me a single quote from a single Southern leader of the time indicating that they also thought blacks were their equal in any way whatsoever? Or that blacks had any rights at all? Do that and then I'll grant that they were better than Lincoln in that area. Can you do that? Or is it Lincoln alone rather than racism that concerns you?
But the bottom line is he didn't hold modern PC racial views. Again, I'm not denouncing him, his views were the common views of that era.
You say that, right after denouncing him as racist.
But you can't throw a hissy fit over the Confederacy and then brush off Washington's slave ownership and Lincoln's objection to racial equality as being merely the product of their day.
I would defy you to find a single instance where I ever criticized the racial viewpoints of the rebel leaders except in response to someone, like you, who first called Lincoln racist for his viewpoints.
The left likes Animal Farm exemptions, but only of their own making.
I've found that, consciously or unconsciously, nobody likes Animal Farm more than a Southron supporter. How else can you explain your logic behind unilateral secession? In your view, only the seceding states have rights to be respected, the remaining states have none. Only the seceding states have Constitutional protections, the remaining states have none. The seceding states can take any action they want regardless of impact, and the remaining states have no choice but to sit and take it. If ever there was a "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" scenario then that is it.
Except when it came time for allocating congressional seats.
Don't tell me that a Yankee knows your heritage better than you do?
Southern myth has tried to show that. Unsuccessfully.
I wonder if my Grandpappy met HIS Grandpappy as he was helping Quantrill burn down Lawrence.......
Since he is here, GUESS NOT!
Walter E. Williams
Department of Economics
MSN 3G4
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
I wouldn't presume for a moment to debate Dr. Williams on Economics. That is his field and he is an expert there.
But on history, I'd be willing to debate him at any time. After reading his rants, I know without a doubt I am far better informed on the topic than he.
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.