Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
But the right for the state to remain slave was never in danger. Only the expansion of slavery into the territories, and the probable result that few, if any, new slave states would be added. Is that a "worthy" cause?
Slavery would have died out of it's own volition in just a few years, without the loss of life and, more importantly, without the loss of the 10th amendment which we suffered through the action of the oppressive(yep, that's the word)Fed government under Lincoln.
I would defy you to provide a quote from a single Southern leader who believed that. On the contrary, they believed slavery would be an institution that they handed down to their children and grandchildren.
In other words, you'd have been a traitor, not just to your country but to your state.
I didn't say with out problems, I just couldn't go the other way. It is possbile that had I been born a Yankee(God forbid) I would feel different, maybe more of an empire mindset, must be something in the water. (Maybe there is a secret Federal Program set up to brainwash Yankee youngin's that we don't know about down here) Please, this is unconfortable thinking like a Yankee, torture....
Oh it isn't hard at all to identify the reason you feel that way. It's called hypocrisy.
Please, this is unconfortable thinking like a Yankee, torture....
Then by all means return to your Southron mindset which doesn't require you to think at all. Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
I may have been a traitor in your eyes, but I would have been fighting for what I believe in, (little r) republican values. Look where we are now. I am not a Yankee (thank you God) so this is moot anyway. I give up trying to understand the motives of the Federalist/Statist Yankee of the 19th century. It is just impossible for me to fathom.
Explain how you justify "preserving" the Union using black powder and lead, how perverted and sick is that YANK. At least other barbarians didn't bother with making hilarious excuses to justify their invasions.
Very simple, REB. The confederacy started a war. The confederacy lost the war. We had to keep you after that. To do otherwise would have been rewarding you for losing your war and what kind of precedent would that have set?
At least other barbarians didn't bother with making hilarious excuses to justify their invasions.
I couldn't put it better than ol' Willie T. himself:
"War is the remedy our enemy's have chosen. They dared us to war, and you remember how tauntingly they defied us to the contest. We have accepted the issue and it must be fought out. You might as well reason with a thunderstorm. I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we are whipped or they are."
I think that I can speak for the entire North when I say that we thank God you're not a Yankee, too.
Something that many traitors can say. John Walker Lindh was fighting for something he believed in. The Rosenberg's were spying for a cause they believed in.
I give up trying to understand the motives of the Federalist/Statist Yankee of the 19th century.
Loyalty. Patriotism. Duty. Country.
It is just impossible for me to fathom.
Apparently.
Let me know when the taliban starts quoting Thomas Jefferson, deal?
What do those four things have to do with Yankee motives?
Not the point. The point is that simply believing in something doesn’t excuse treason. It doesn’t matter if it’s religion or a political ideal.
I understand that those words mean nothing to you. Maybe a dictionary would help.
And again you slander my ancestors.
If you are saying anyone who was from Yankee land that joined the P.A.C.S. 1861-1865 was a traitor, then I missed the part where there were mass trials and hangings post "unpleasantness". All were paroled as far as I know. So you are alone in that thinking, doesn't surprise me (the alone part).
And you mine, so stop with the traitor talk and I will stop also. I, at least, try to put myself in 19th century Northern brogans, you wouldn't dare make that leap the other way. Give me that.
You have every reason to be proud of them, they won didn't they? Look Yankee Troops were certainly brave. I just question the whole motive for the invasion, that's all. It amazing, that to this day, Yankees actually believe the threat was serious, it's not like the South could have actually invaded the North sucessfully. Not enough Southerners. Good fake job I guess. The best to hope for was a defensive stalemate.
All were pardoned, by Andrew Johnson in a series of amnesty proclamations. The last one in December 1868 included the last of the rebel leaders, including Davis himself.
You'd be wrong, there. I think I have a pretty good idea of why the average southern soldier was fighting, and I would never say that he was fighting for slavery, at least in his mind. He was fighting for his home, his community, his state, and for his interpretation of his rights. You, on the other hand, appear to be simply baffled by anyone who remained loyal to the United States and answered the call of the flag.
If. Now there's a strong argument.............
The fact is that IF Lincoln was so wildly popular he would have gotten 50, 60, maybe even 70% of the popular vote regardless of how many candidates were running.
But IF you want to do IF's, I say that IF DisHonest Abe had been running by himself, he would have still only gotten 39% of the popular vote. Hell, maybe less.
BTW, I'd rather be associated with Judge Napolitano than you and your ilk any day.
I mean different from humans in general.
So, you consider me sub-human but respond to my every post. Do you communicate with other non-human life forms as well?
So you're saying that neither Bush or Reagan had a mandate? Just to be clear.
The 1980 election was as much about getting rid of Carter as the 2000 election was of purging the Clinton's.
The 1984 election was a true mandate. 2004? If Obama had been running in 2004 Bush would have never seen a second term.
Just to be clear.
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.