Shame of the Yankees - America's Worst Anti-Jewish Action [Civil War thread]

Jewish Press ^ | 11-21-06 | Lewis Regenstein

[spacecowboynj]

How was the 1864 election unfair and dishonest?"

I didn't say it was. I just backed up the individual who posted that comment that Lincoln was crooked. The only vague recollection of info I have on the election is that Lincoln won a plurality of the vote (like Clinton in 92) rather than a majority. But that's still a win.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nope.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Yes, I see that. I apologize.

I think he trounced McClellan.

74% of the people voted. Lincoln received 55% of the vote and 212 electoral votes. McClellan got 12 (and I believe they came from Kentucky, Maryland, and New Jersey.

Just FYI only.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

21 electoral votes not 12.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Decent "Americans" have NEVER been in insurrection against the Union.

Civility to those who try and defend the indefensible is dishonest.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

And 80% of the army voted for him as well. General Grant made sure that the soldiers could vote. Good for Grant I say because he set a precedent that is still followed today.

[Cinnamon Girl]

Interesting. I never heard about this before. When I saw the title I thought it was going to be about the NY Yankees.

[StoneWall Brigade]

General George S. Patton's grandfather fought with the 22nd Virginia

[spacecowboynj]

"Decent "Americans" have NEVER been in insurrection against the Union."

Sure they have, since the beginning of this country. All of New England came close to secession. South Carolina almost seceded over tariffs (this was always the cause of wanting to secede) and were going to until the sitting President backed off it. In fact, this very nation was a bunch of colonies that simply seceded from Great Britain. They basically said "You're forcing unfairness on us and it's our God-given right to secede." It's all there, in the Declaration of Independence.

The problem was the Whig Part and people like Henry Clay. Consider the Whigs the most leftist, socialist Democrats of today. Lincoln WAS a Whig and only became a Republican for the same reason Bloomberg did in NYC - to win elections. Unlike his predecessors all the way back to Washington (who backed of unfair tariffs to avoid insurrection), Lincoln wouldn't take no for an answer. He wanted to fleece the South to pay for public works projects in the North. The very first shots of the Civil War were fired at a tariff collection point. Lincoln boasted that he would get the money by force and he meant it.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

what they LATER wrote is called RE-writing history & spouting SELF-serving, sanctimonious, LIES to cover-up the FACT that the war against the new dixie republic was BOTH needLESS & UNjust!

Or it could be that when they had time to reflect on what happened, they came to the conclusion that the cause of the war was slavery, just as almost everybody else has since then.

Do you have some evidence that they thought differently on matters earlier?

[justshutupandtakeit]

And I never heard George attacking Lincoln or pretending the Insurrection was justified.

[Non-Sequitur]

everyone on FR knows what who/what you are.

And the same can be said about you. Your somewhat cavalier attitude towards the truth is well known by all.

[Non-Sequitur]

I believe most of us here learned in grade school about Sherman's "march to the sea" in which his army plundered, murdered, and raped civilians who were a direct target of his campaign ...

Ah, so now we're backing off of the massacres and falling back on that tired old southron standby, rape and murder? I'm glad we were able to get that out in the open.

This is Sherman after the destruction of Meridian, MS...

Let's be accurate here. What Sherman said was, "Meridian, with its depots, store-houses, arsenal, hospital, hotels, offices, and cantonments no longer exists." Meridian was an important supply center for the rebel armies in the area, and Sherman's destruction was concentrated on what could only be considered military targets - rail facilities, warehouses, supply depots, and military cantonments. The rest of the town suffered little or no damage. Sorry if you find that upsetting, but war is, after all, hell.

I think this line by Sherman puts his attitude in sharp relief...

No actually I believe this line sums up Sherman's position even better: "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. And I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave-in until we are whipped - or they are."

War is the course the South chose to pursue in order to achieve their aims. Having chosen war, the South cannot complain just because the war did not turn out the way they had hoped.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Is his grandfather a traitor or not?

[justshutupandtakeit]

"All of New England came close to secession." Not true. Do not inflate the actions or significance of the Hartford Convention. It never even passed a resolution urging such a course. But such things don't matter much to those trying to justify or rationalize the RAT Rebellion.

"South Carolina almost seceded over tariffs..." even this is not strictly true. Many of those adopting nullification were adamantly against any talk of secession.
South Carolina born President Andrew Jackson put an end to such sedition when he treated to hang the leaders of the movement. HE was a Patriot.

"In fact, this very nation was a bunch of colonies that simply seceded from Great Britain." There is a huge difference between declaring independence from a government in which you have no representation and one which you have controlled for almost the entire existence of the country. Our Union was created by the American People unlike the British empire.

"The problem was the Whig Part and people like Henry Clay. Consider the Whigs the most leftist, socialist Democrats of today." Total nonsense where understandable. What was "the Problem"? The Whigs were in NO way socialist, leftist or like Democrats (the party they were contesting for power WAS Democrat).

"Unlike his predecessors all the way back to Washington (who backed of unfair tariffs to avoid insurrection)," Utterly false. Tariffs were the major source of federal revenue from the beginning of the United States. They were not controversial and were all passed with the majority support of the Southern representatives who could have prevented any such bill from passing. Washington certainly NEVER "backed off" and the only insurrection which occurred during his presidency was put down decisively by federalized militia from the states bordering Pennsylvania.

"He wanted to fleece the South to pay for public works projects in the North." More absurdity. Before Lincoln took office the RAT Rebellion was in full sway. He had NOTHING to do with the tariff before taking office and had NO program of public works in mind to spend the money on. But you people will believe any absurdity no matter how patently false it is.

[Non-Sequitur]

In fact, this very nation was a bunch of colonies that simply seceded from Great Britain.

Let's be accurate here. The colonists rebelled. They launched a revolt. They were well aware that their actions were not legal, they knew that they would have to fight for their independence, and were prepared to accept the consequences of their actions without whining. Oh, and they won. Another one of the differences between the Founding Fathers and the leaders of the Southern rebellion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

He was as was anyone who took up arms against the United States. This is not my definition but that of the Constitution. Andrew Jackson said the same thing.

[justshutupandtakeit]

But there was a huge difference in that the Colonists were never allowed representation whereas the Southern politicians had controlled the federal government for all but a few years since the Founding. The Founders were not rebelling against a Nation created by the American People but a government which denied them the rights of Englishmen.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Robert E. Lee always called it a revolution. He fought, and he lost. Never once did he whine. When Colonel Porter Alexander wanted to disappear into the mountains to fight a guerilla war, he said no. We've been beaten. He settled down and lived his life in quiet dignity. Many of his soldiers followed his example. Lee was prepared to accept the consequences as well. He put on his best uniform before meeting Grant because he thought he could be Grant's prisoner.

What I don't understand is why you hold our forefathers in such esteem, but hold Lee in such contempt. Perhaps he committed the one sin America cannot abide. He lost.

But you can still be honorable in defeat as you are in victory.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think he represented one slave in all his years as a lawyer (I believe he lost the case, but I could be wrong).

You would be, on both claims.

Lincoln's famous remark that if he could preserve the Union without freeing one slave he would summed up his attitude.

No, Lincoln summed up his attitude at the end of that letter when he said, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." But I noticed that you posted part of the quote, in keeping with the Southron penchant for half quotes, misquotes, and quotes out of context. What Lincoln actuall said was this:

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt."

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

Somewhat different when put into context, wouldn't you say?

As regards his true attitude to slavery, he was a colonist. He wanted every single one of them put on boats and relocated back to Africa. He most certainly regarded blacks as irredeemably inferior to whites.

A gross overstatement. Lincoln supported colonization, but so did Robert Lee who paid passage for some of his slaves to Liberia. He did not want every single black deported to Africa, but in fact spoke against those who saw emancipation as a threat to whites. And he was unrepentently, irreversably opposed to slavery unlike men like Robert Lee or Thomas Jackson or Jefferson Davis who believed slavery was the best place for blacks. When compared with those men, Lincoln looks better and better.