Posted on 08/30/2012 2:40:56 PM PDT by PeaRidge
The 1848 "law" was the new state constitution. "Support" for the constitution didn't necessarily imply support for all it's provisions, but so far, we've only got your word that he did supported either the 1848 constitution or the 1853 law..
I guess the idea behind all this stuff is that Lincoln isn't what his admirers make him out to be. But neither were the 19th century Southerners that neo-confederates idolize. They were all creatures or their own era, none of whom would measure up to 21st century standards.
For all that, Lincoln was "better" by current standards on racial issues than at least 90% of his countrymen.
your last line,
it doesn’t make it right with hsi racist attitudes, contrast to say Brown.
Thanks for that reply but I was hoping an answer to the questions.
just asked,\\
do you think that it;s right to fight people and kill them in order to force them to live with you?
Also I take it seeing as you did not answer is that you support America fighting for independance but do you not support the south having their independance and instead you would fight to force them to live with you?
Something that isn’t mentioned a lot is the difference in the utterances and writings at the time of the war and in the era prior to the war from region to region.
As one living in Platte County, MO, born in Jackson County Mo, growing up in Johnson County, Kansas, schooling in Lawrence, with ancestors in Osawatomie and Fulton, Kansas, I was reared in the lore of the Border War.
David Atchison was the former Senator in Clay and Platte County that prompted the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a means to introduce slavery into Kansas. In his speaches and writings, in his associates utterances and actions, everything was “about” slavery. The efforts to get a slave-holder constitution in Kansas to expand slave holding state balances of power was in every day’s newspaper in the late 1850s.
The abolitionists, the slave holder rights, the issues with settlers from New England, the border jumpers going to vote from Missouri — it was a real era of warfare.
To suggest that this prequel to the Civil War, one of the circumstances that prompted succession, was about anything other that slavery and the balance of power to preserve it is only done with a refusal to read the primary sources.
The prison collapse, the raid in Osceola, and the burned out district south of Kansas City are all issues to be raised on the Confederate behalf, but Tarrifs and other issues were not discussed at the time to any extent in all the anger.
I don’t recall a beckett08 but I do recall several times when you’ve been humiliated...or embarrassed yourself. Some things never change.
no course you do not remember ARF, the last time you jumped in trying to be a big shot you ended up looking like a fool over Beckett08
Yea you certainly like to jump in with two feet, oh and in case you were not around then she was banned and I was right, she was a troll.
But they didn't. While Topeka had integrated even before the court decision was handed down, at least one of the Southern counties involved in the decision disbanded their public school system rather than integrate. And yet another opportunity to grab the moral high ground was lost.
You’ll have to refresh my memory noob. Who is the becket person and why should I GAD? The only one I do remember as being a consistent troll on these threads is you.
newb, seriously ARF GAD?
You dont; remember , course not LOL
Funny how you looked like a prize plum for defending her and actually you defended a ANSWER anti war occupy protest troll.
But then again you always troll for my me or others who do not agree with you, .
I wonder if you're gonna get the "new guy" speech for saying that (lol).
Check it out. One of the short list of websites I try to visit every day.
I think the North should have let the South go, but if the slaves had rebelled the North should have aided their rebellion.
Again, you ask the wrong question -- a question which is irrelevant to actual history of the Civil War era.
The first real question is: should contracts be enforced?
And one relevant analogy would be:
Some years later, your cousin is replaced by another manager who announces that in the future he will not negotiate any more special deals.
So what do you do?
In this analogy, the Confederacy first announced it would not pay off its loan (secession) then went to the bank fully armed and robbed it at gun point (Fort Sumter).
It then declared war on the bank and raised an army to kill bank employees.
Now the real questions are: first, should your contract be enforced, and further, what should be your punishments for unlawful behavior?
So all your propaganda-talk about "fighting and killing people" to "force them to live with you" is a nonsensical distraction.
In summary, the real question is: what is the proper treatment of criminals?
I think President Lincoln responded appropriately to their behavior.
all I want to know is what you think,forget about this war right now or any other war I’m ASKING YOU all it would take is a yes or no.
Do you think it is right to force people to live with you and have to kill some of them to force them?
Did you support the American independance from Britain and do you not support the south having her independance?
agree with that, fighting and killing people in order to make them live with you is just wrong.
Russian saw break aways and I bet most on here woudl have agreed that they break away from Russia
Most would agree breaking away from Britain was right.
But then why woudl those people oppose the south have that same right.
If the north east today wanted to break away I’d be all for it , they want to leave and have a liberal utopia then , please go ahead, I’d lose no sleep over it at all.
I guess not. But if you're ahead of the curve, that is something. Also, nobody in elective politics with a chance of winning is going to be as absolutist or as committed as a fanatic operating outside and against the system.
understand your point you made but I do slightly disagree with it and it;s no point saying why as we would just go back and forth.
Lee was just an average General
No Slavery No War
Should have invaded Canada and taken that out.
Mexico too, put them good Reb soldiers to work doin something useful
Should have sent them back to their homeland and families in Africa
jus sayin
“Grant”
Yes, he did say that. But in his Civil War memoirs, (which I’ve read) he also said the southern cause was for one of the worst (evils) ever i.e. slavery.
yes, Of course he did. That would be the right thing to say....later..
Neither of those quotes is legitimate.
You can have your own opinions, no matter how crazy, but you don’t get to make up your own facts.
Glad you straightened me out on this, now I can sleep much better at night.
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.