Just so we're clear here, when talking about the author of "American Caesar", this is the Greg Loren Durand that we're talking about, right?
Owner of Crown Rights Books and The Confederate Reprint Company? That Greg Durand?
Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)
This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
American education: 12 years of indoctrination, a lifetime of undoing the damage.
I’ve read more about war than probably all of you in here combined.
Feel free to through mud all you want. Feel free to refute history.
The issue of slavery had been boiling over since the 1830s and Lincoln was very much against the practice. Did he make an offer for them to settle outside the US? Sure did.
Yep, the Civil War is over. There is no justification for continued hostilities - we should be concentrating on disenfranchising dhimmicrats.
Not meant as an insult but merely an observation of several posters who assume they know something yet won’t do the honest research to verify.
I offered a great resource in the book America’s Caesar I referenced. I can offer other resources (as can the huge bibliography in A.C.), but I think it’s the best starting point for people who seem to have their “facts” so twisted (and believe me, I was there too not long ago).
If random quotes are better than the quotes in their full context, then god help us.
Almost forgot, the full e-book is available free on the web (I just hate reading books online). http://www.americascaesar.com/
If you don’t find any answers there, I’d be happy to discuss further.
How time(and politics) seem to change perceptions of right and wrong!
Mohammar Qadafi has presently been marked for death and “removal” by our President for slaughtering Libyan civilians because they dared to rebel against his government.
He has instigated a “slash and burn”, “scorched earth” policy against the cities that these “insurrectionists” have fortified. He is branded a war criminal by the world.
Lincoln’s tactical mayhem, by his Presidential order, starved innocent women, children and the elderly by taking away every element of survival from them, including burning their homes and barns and killing or confiscating their livestock. Many civilian men were given farcial trials and hung or shot. Sherman’s march to the sea, ordered by Lincoln, was nothing less than a Presidential decree to murder and lay waste to the livelihoods of American citizens who dared disagree with him. Now Yankee historians expect us to be grateful for his magnanimous “Restoration”.
Abraham Lincoln makes Qadafi look like a lamb!
Massacre and murder on the scale that Lincoln committed against Americans will not and cannot ever be forgotton. The memory runs in the blood and memory of even today’s generation. Add that to the lies that are, even today, leveled against a large segment of the population, the extreme prejudice and degradation, (as evidenced by some of the above comments) and you have a war that is unlikely to ever be won, as you Yankees like to boast that you have.
The South hasn’t forgotten, and likely, never will. You Yanks want to forget the fact that, like those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to Islamic terrorists, we who lost family to a tyrant never will either. There will never be enough lies printed, history rewritten, or denials made to wipe out the memory of wholesale murder and dishonorable tactics from the descendants of those who endured them.
Thanks for the reference, I’ll check it out.
FWIW, Lincoln is no hero of mine. I sympathize with the feeling that he started to turn out government into what it is today (it was done by any one President but he sure helped). I don’t think this was intentional, I simply feel he was trying to do his best to keep the country together and he did the right thing.
There was no other major states right at issues other than slavery. The issue had been boiling for decades.
In fact it took North Carolina three or more votes before they actually did secede and they lost the most men of any state in the confederacy.
Hardly a great resource. "American Caeser" is no more an unbiased account of Abraham Lincoln and his record than Carl Sandburg's books are.
codetoad wrote “In fact, Lincoln himself had written and argued that free slaves should not be welcomed into the State of Illinois.”
Read Chapter 6: http://www.americascaesar.com/
And I quote from Lincoln in Sept. ‘58:
“I am not in favor of negro citizenship... Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it.” (note 27)
Of course that was WAY back in ‘58 before he declared war on the South without Congress’s approval (something we’re all familiar with today) a few years later. So he must’ve had a change of heart, right? Except AFTER the glorious Emancipation Proclamation he goes on:
“I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.
I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal....
Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” (note 29)
Are we done playing kids games now? Please do your own homework and read the book, and see how many of your “facts” hold true.
stormer wrote:
“Yeah, I’m pretty sure the south’s gonna rise again...”
Stormer, let’s assume for a moment, that the creatures that you protray in your hateful pictoral post really do exist.
I can guarantee you, that in the course of this present meltdown of the world’s economy, these people will be living, eating, drinking and clothing themselves long after you and your blackberry toting, gps dependent, tofu eating, animal worshipping, governmentally rendered sterile Liberal Yankees have starved to death in your concrete and steel coffins because the Food Stamps stopped coming.
Survival of the fittest, don’t you know?
That’s like saying “Lincoln’s own words are no more an unbiased account of Abraham Lincoln and his record” since half the book is original text - COMPLETE original texts and not just quotes for simple-minded people to claim are distortions and taken out of context.
But thanks for the two cents. I always appreciate feedback from people who haven’t read for themselves.
And what of it? Dred Scott made the issue moot, and even if Lincoln had not chosen to respond to a Douglas attack on him on this issue there was nothing he could do about it anyway. Regardless, the claim was that Lincoln is quoted as saying free blacks were unwelcome in Illinois. If this is your standard then obviously free blacks were unwelcome in any state in the Union.
Of course that was WAY back in ‘58 before he declared war on the South without Congress’s approval (something we’re all familiar with today) a few years later.
You declare war on other countries, not rebellious parts of your own. No declaration of war would have been appropriate.
I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.
Lincoln supported colonization for most if his adult life. If that makes him an evil person then he's in pretty good company because men like James Monroe, John Breckenridge, and Robert Lee all supported the same cause. Does your condemnation extend to them as well? And where were any of these men evil in wanting to assist those free blacks who wanted to in carving out their own life free from the oppression and racial discrimination that they faced in the U.S., North and South?
Are we done playing kids games now?
Not when you insist on doing so.
Please do your own homework and read the book, and see how many of your “facts” hold true.
I have. Far more so than you apparently.
You’re welcome.
I always had my suspicions on Lincoln for some reason, but after reading America’s Caesar and many other older books on him and that era, they’re no longer suspicions. I think you too will find your assumption on slavery as the cause to be incorrect upon deeper investigation.
Even if you believe slavery WAS the issue, you could say “so what”...then let the slave states leave peacefully then and 600,000 people won’t have to die (and many in congress argued just that). But Lincoln couldn’t allow that for the economic implications were too great to the North. He preferred to “save the union” (aka consolidate power in D.C. at the cost of half a million + dead) rather than let states secede peacefully.
Remember, four states didn’t secede until Lincoln raised 75,000 troops to invade the South. They died as Virginians and North Carolinians because they didn’t want to live under another monarchy just as their ancestors fought. If only we had a Jefferson who told NH et al they could secede if they wanted just a couple generations earlier.
The scariest thing about A.C. is reading it today and reading the speeches, tactics, precedents, etc. from generations ago (esp. Lincoln and FDR) and the unbelievable parallels and abuses in the present administration. (/shiver)
Context is not Durand's strong suit. Nor is an interest in fairness.
I don’t believe that the US declared war against the rebels.
Just so we're clear here, when talking about the author of "American Caesar", this is the Greg Loren Durand that we're talking about, right?
Owner of Crown Rights Books and The Confederate Reprint Company? That Greg Durand?
Correct, sort of. He told SC’s governor that Sumter would be abandoned and he wouldn’t send any more munitions and men, and then broke his promise by trying to send battleships then arms and troops (his own general’s were outraged). By forcing SC’s hand, he could let his minions in congress say that SC had levied war on the U.S. and now he was justified to use “war powers” without a war!
The fact that it went on throughout reconstruction and has allowed the Executive to grow in power ever since (vs the other 2 arms of gov’t and the states) is exactly the point.
The original, and most accurate, name was "The War of the Rebellion". "Civil War" wasn't officially adopted by the government, who were responsible for the documentation of the conflict, until the early 20th century.
Yada, yada, yada.
Yada, yada, yada indeed. It's obvious that you and Durand are kindred spirits.
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.