150 years later, Virginia treats Lincoln like a hero (Hooray for Hollywood)

SF Gate ^ | April 11, 2013 | Christine Delsol

[Colonel Kangaroo]

As the capital of the Confederate States of America, Richmond, Va. could hardly be described as a supporter of Abraham Lincoln; its grand Monument Avenue is chock-full of oversized statues of heroes of the Confederacy, including Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Jeb Stuart. But now, nearly 150 years after the Civil War ended, Lincoln – or at least the movie version of him – is Richmond’s new hero...

To coincide with the movie’s recent release on DVD, Virginia Tourism Corporation has created several self-guided tours that follow Lincoln around the state...

[rockrr]

Yes I complained. Pictures like that of solders, north or south, should be off limits. Normal people know better. What is wrong with you?

[agrarianlady]

“Bleeding Kansas” is all just my ignorance.

Sure. Yeah.

[Sherman Logan]

Lincoln’s approval of Gen Grant and Sherman’s “scorched earth” treatment of the South makes him culpable for more murder and destruction within the US than any other President in our history.

Well, no, that President would be Jefferson Davis, who chose to launch war against the United States in the belief, accurate as it turned out, that doing so would force Upper South and Border states to choose sides. He also believed, only half correctly, that they would all or most join the CSA.

The story of Sherman's March to the Sea being a Mongol-like continuous massacre serves, like all myths, psychological purposes. That's why myths develop. Oddly, it was universally acknowledged at the time that SC was treated MUCH more harshly than GA, but it's the GA march that gets the publicity.

A similar myth is that held by Irish-Americans of widespread "No Irish Need Apply" notifications in help-wanted ads. Didn't happen. Yet another is the Mormon mythology of systematic attempted extermination by mobocrats in MO and elsewhere.

What all three myths have in common is their taking of actual events and exaggerating them wildly out of all relationship to reality. This then justifies those reveling in the myths in later feelings of victimhood and self-justification.

The "No Irish Need Apply" myth was comprehensively demolished by a scholar who set out to quantify its extent, not disprove it. But what he discovered in his research is that it didn't happen.

For years now I've asked believers in the other two myths (Sherman and Mormon) to post links to research quantifying the extent of the killing and raping (as opposed to property theft and destruction) perpetrated.

Nobody has ever done so. Seems like someone who really believes in these myths would be happy to do the research to document their truth, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Here's an interesting article by someone who did research the infamous March to the Sea. Not much quantification here, but does cover the reasons the myth developed.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

Side comment. I've always found it extremely odd that neo-confederates can denounce Sherman's March while at the same time, which most of them do, consider US military policy in WWII of indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations justified.

[wideawake]

Thanks for the condescension.

In point of actual historical fact, Lincoln did absolutely nothing to alter the relationship of the states to the federal government.

The Confederacy sought to do so, and Lincoln restored the previous, Constitutional order.

The Confederates were the radicals and innovators against the Republic as it was.

As far as the 17th Amendment was concerned, its most forceful advocate was William Jennings Bryan, the Democrat Secretary of State, who spoke frequently in support of the Amendment. It was a coalition of Southern and Western Democrats who got the amendment passed.

The most ardent foe of the 17th Amendment was the Republican Elihu Root - he and a hard core of ten Republican senators opposed it to the end, and they lost their seats in the popular elections that followed.

The Constitution in its very text forbids secession (the Supremacy Clause) and the Framers specifically repudiated this stupid idea in The Federalist.

[central_va]

What is wrong with you. That was an historical picture, nothing wrong with it. Dweeb.

[x]

The "No Irish Need Apply" myth was comprehensively demolished by a scholar who set out to quantify its extent, not disprove it. But what he discovered in his research is that it didn't happen.

Well, there is this from the New York Times in 1854:

I does seem to be the only one on the Internet, though.

I noticed that people always put the time the signs appeared roughly in their grandparents time. So you'd have politicians in recent years talking about "No Irish Need Apply" signs in Boston in the 1930s, a time when the Irish largely ran the city, at least politically, and such signs weren't in evidence.

So far as I can tell the current version is that at one point in the early 19th century such signs or lines in ads appeared London, England. Irishmen wrote songs about that and when the songs were passed down the legend grew that such signs were common in the US.

Something similar may be true of the "No Dogs or Jews" signs people claim to have seen on the lawns of fancy hotels. There may well have been such signs in Nazi Germany, but it's doubtful to me that any upscale hotel would be so blatant or that that particular wording was common in the US. There were other ways of getting the message across (i.e. restricted clientele).

[Sherman Logan]

Truly excellent article by the guy who demolished this myth without really planning to.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm

In the entire file of the New York Times from 1851 to 1923, there are two NINA ads for men, one of which is for a teenager. Computer searches of classified help wanted ads in the daily editions of other online newspapers before 1923 such as the Booklyn Eagle, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune show that NINA ads for men were extremely rare--fewer than two per decade.

Unlike the employment market for men, the market for female servants included a small submarket in which religion or ethnicity was specified. Thus newspaper ads for nannies, cooks, maids, nurses and companions sometimes specified "Protestant Only." "I can't imagine, Carrie, why you object so strongly to a Roman Catholic," protests the husband in an 1854 short story. "Why, Edward, they are so ignorant, filthy, and superstitious. It would never do to trust the children alone with one, for there is no telling what they might learn." Intimate household relationships were delicate matters for some families, but the great majority of maids in large cities were Irish women, so the submarket that refused to hire them could not have been more than ten percent.

[rockrr]

I just saw it as disrespectful to the solders memory.

BTW - I posted another WBTS thread here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3007626/posts

[central_va]

I just saw it as disrespectful to the solders memory.

Well there you go, YOU think something is disrespectful, so YOU have to do something. Maybe others do not see it that way.

Like I said, there you go.

[JerseyanExile]

Regarding the idea that it was the war between North and South or Reconstruction that created such a bad environment for blacks post-war, I think the following speech by the Vice-President of the Confederacy deserves bringing up. It was made before the outbreak of war, and wasn't particularly controversial in its time. These are not the words of a society that would have abandoned slavery within a one or two decades if merely left alone or that would have avoided making something comparable or even worse than Jim Crow.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

[OneWingedShark]

You should try it yourself. Slavery would have continued for decades had the South won. It's what they were fighting for. There wasn't an alternative available. Their society was completely dependent on it.

Perhaps, but the question that really remains is was a civil war necessary to end slavery? Or could it have ben handled in a way that would not have destroyed the States/Republic?
England's history points to 'no', because they got rid of it in the legislature. Could we have done similar, without something like the 14th Amendment? Probably, I would submit that the following amendment would have ended slavery fairly quickly (given the technological advances going on), w/o bloodshed, and without subjugation of the states:
"Recognizing that all men are born with inherent dignity, no person shall be born into slavery nor shall anyone be denied citizenship on their parent's slavery."

In fact, such an amendment would likely have prevented Roe v. Wade -- which is nothing more than the USSC saying "we can invalidate any state-law[s] we want".

[OneWingedShark]

>> There was a time when none denied it.
>
> And when was that exactly?

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to W. Crawford, June 20, 1816.

[0.E.O]

England's history points to 'no', because they got rid of it in the legislature.

England didn't have a section of their country willing to launch a bloody war to defend slavery. The U.S. did.

I would submit that the following amendment would have ended slavery fairly quickly (given the technological advances going on), w/o bloodshed, and without subjugation of the states...

In the first place it would have taken 46 non-slave states to pass such an amendment. None of the slave states would have voted for it because the concept was against everything they stood for. In the second place, there were no technological advances to replace slavery. Commercial cotton harvesters were 80 years away, pesticides even further.

In fact, such an amendment would likely have prevented Roe v. Wade -- which is nothing more than the USSC saying "we can invalidate any state-law[s] we want".

Doubtful, but since such an amendment had zero chance of adoption then we'll never really know.

[0.E.O]

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’”

"My opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw...is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal - this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification...The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started in Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection." - James Madison, 1788

[OneWingedShark]

"My opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw...is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal - this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification...The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started in Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection." - James Madison, 1788

Compact
A formal agreement or contract between two or more parties.

Let us consider, then, marriage as a compact: if that compact is not kept then are the parties bound thereunto? No.
Jesus Himself kept this exception (fornication) in his rejection of divorce. [Matt 5:22]

Now, given the restrictions placed on the powers of the federal government by the Constitution, would you argue that the Compact is being kept by the Federal government? Do you think that it could even be fairly said there is good faith in keeping it? Please keep in mind:

1. Fast & Furious, which evinces ill-will toward the States and their people as well as multiple flagrant violations of the Constitution;
2. Obamacare, which destroys the individual liberty of the person to buy or sell;
3. Roe v. Wade, wherein the supreme court declared it could invent a right to privacy in order to invalidate all anti-abortion laws in the States;
4. the TSA, which recognizes no Right to Privacy, nor Right to Travel, nor the restrictions of the 4th Amendment;
5. Wickard v. filburn, wherein the USSC declared that intrastate commerce impacted the interstate and could be regulated;
6. Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the USSC declared that not participating in commerce, even if such is prohibited, is the same as commerce;
7. the 2013 NDAA allows for a person to be held w/o charges;
8. the current talks of gun ban/registration.

[central_va]

We have strayed so far from the original intent of the republic’s founding that even the slightest memory of it is lost on today’s population. There isn’t even a starting place to begin to realize that we are 180 degrees opposite of the original intent with regards to states rights, the 10th and what secession means. 0.E.O is a prime example. The republic is dead in him.

[0.E.O]

The marriage analogy is ridiculous. States, with but 13 exceptions, joined the Union only with the permission of the other states. This permission is expressed through a majority vote in Congress. So far as I know the bride does not need to get the permission of a majority of the grooms family to marry him. Once allowed into the Union states are limited as to what they can do outside their own borders if that action impacts another state. They can't split up without consent of Congress. They can't combine with another state without consent of Congress. They can't alter their borders or enter into agreements with the other states without consent of Congress. Leaving the Union entirely should require the same, or so James Madison thought.

"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison, 1832

[0.E.O]

Any time I see someone from a Blue State complaining about big government I just have to laugh.

[Lee'sGhost]

Wow! That’s what I’ve been saying forever. Hope you have your flame suite on. South haters don’t like hearing the truth.

[Lee'sGhost]

Great argument. Two wrongs make a right. We should use that more often.