Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
NOT!.....
Read post #584 that you "conveniently" chose to overlook!
i, otoh, think lincoln (& his merry band of thugs) were just that: THUGS.
free dixie,sw
By the way, an end to secession was the ONLY thing the Commissioners were NOT allowed to negotiate.
You do not know the meaning of the term "revisionist" wrt Civil War history and you show that with every post.
just "good clean fun" for the "boys in blue"??? right???
at least i've NEVER heard of you condemning the DAMNyankees for their THOUSANDS of ATROCITIES committed against UNarmed civilians & helpless CSA prisoners of war.
free dixie,sw
you KNOW zilch, not only about the WBTS, but i have found little that you know about.
laughing AT you.
REVISIONIST historiography arose in the MOST extreme, LEFTIST, lunatic fringe of ivy league academia in about 1965. it was an ATTEMPT to "cover up" & EXCUSE the TENS of THOUSANDS of ATROCITIES committed against the people of dixie during the war by the INVADERS.
the "slavery is all" NONSENSE came out of that FAILED attempt. traditional scholars of that period LAUGHED AT them, just as i do YOU!
free dixie,sw
Southern states had seceded before Lincoln could do anything. Why should he abandon federal facilities before threats anyway? What kind of coward would do that and violate his oath of office? Why should he receive unauthorized representatives of an Insurrection? Why should he pretend that state conventions had any legal authority over the Union? Why should he not resupply federal installations merely because of threats and be guilty of deriliction of duty? NO president would have followed the course of action you proclaim (except maybe Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton) not even Buchanan.
But none of those questions really have any relevance since there was NO inclination of the Southern leaders to do anything but secede. There is NO moral equivalency here.
No one has ever claimed the war was about slavery except the Slaver Insurrectionists. Nor did historians begin to make that claim in the 60s. Once again you prove your ignorance of the meaning of such technical terms.
Well that "moral" equivalence clause pretty much depends on your view of secession.
So they were there to present an ultimatum. The only possible outcome was their's, Lincoln's preferences weren't open for discussion. So where was that an honest attempt on the part of the confederates to negotiate in good faith? And since Lincoln's only choice was to surrender to their demands then why should he be criticized for not surrendering?
No.
at least i've NEVER heard of you condemning the DAMNyankees for their THOUSANDS of ATROCITIES committed against UNarmed civilians & helpless CSA prisoners of war.
Probably because you have shown nothing to condemn. Even on the oh so rare occasions where you stumble and post something close to the truth.
No...he could have recognized the Confederacy, and the CSA would have PAID for Ft. Sumter, etc., OR He could have simply withdrawn from Ft. Sumter, NOT recognized the Confederacy, and could have allowed for a "cooling off" period of time. On the other hand, the Confederate Government could have simply closed the port and starved out the garrison, and avoided any acts of violence for a period of time, to allow Lincoln to consider other options. The stickler is that Lincoln refused to even MEET with any commissioners.
I corrected your statement for you. Hope you don't mind.
Either way Lincoln rewards the southern states for what Lincoln saw as illegal actions. Some choice.
The stickler is that Lincoln refused to even MEET with any commissioners.
The commissioners were there to obtain recognition of the confederacy, a stamp of approval that legitimized their actions. That's the only option open. So they were there, in effect, to present an ultimatum. Given that what was there to meet about?
Source?
I don't recall that being their only mission.
Boy, that's a step back down the evolutionary chain. ;)
How about instead, you fight for Union? Just a thought.
No.....That would be a contradiction of all I believe.
If I believe in the right of secession, I should be willing to follow it to it's logical course.
Kind of sad, Tex.
I'll stick with Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton rather than tin-pot dictators --- and I'll fight like hell to stay that way.
Adiós, amigo, (Thankfully, I doubt many Texans agree with you) but it sure appears you let this secession BS get to your head. There is no such thing as secession -- never was and never will be.
There is only revolution... pick you side and make your stand.
Initially the view of historians was that the war came because of its Irrepressible nature. That is the way Seward described it in 1858. He saw it coming. While many in the South agreed that it's deep set causes made it irrepressible and many there worked long and purposefully to make the split happen. They wanted no part of a United States which would neither allow slavery to expand within this nation nor actively work to allow its spread abroad to the South.
The Revisionist view is that it was not irrepressible but was contingent upon accident, bad faith, etc. My view is definitely NOT Revisionist. I believe it was definitely irrepressible.
Moral equivalence is rejected because I do not believe the South stood for anything consistent with the writings of the Founders either as regard slavery or real Liberty. They found the former so repugnant that they blamed it on the King of England and hoped for its eventual disappearance. The Latter is impossible if it is based upon the removal of some men's liberty. It can never rise above oppression.
However, the Union stood for and protected ALL the beliefs of the Founders and proved strong enough to stand against a deadly firestorm of such force that many nations would have succumbed. It CAN rise above oppression now that the Compromise has been removed from the political body though with horrendous Fire and Blood.
TC- would you not agree that the term Revisionist is as I describe it? stand won't believe me.
Agree. The die was cast with the 3/5 compromise in Philadelphia in 1787.
That, I suppose, was the best they could do then to get the agreement of all 13 states, but it was only done as a compromise to keep the two smallest and arguably weakest of those thirteen in the union, and was just the beginning of "fourscore" of compromise over our founding principles that finally reached a breaking point in 1860.
One can only wonder what would have / could have, been if the other 11 had simply told those two states to go their own way back in 1787.
That would be the alternative history to write. Would they have survived on their own? Would they have relented? Would they have gone back to the British? What would of those two have done and how would the nation have been different today?
Interesting points for conjecture.
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.