Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Second Look at Honest Abe
Straight Talk Newsletter ^ | 2-12-2009 | Chip Wood

Posted on 02/13/2009 8:05:16 AM PST by Dick Bachert

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-142 next last
To: NucSubs

Is it the truth that as Sherman lay in bed watching the fires and listening to the cries of people attempting to flee or put out the fires, that he prayed for those poor, ignorant people who were trying to blame him and his troops by burning their own houses?
(Saw this gem on T.V. as I surfed one evening...)


61 posted on 02/13/2009 10:32:06 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

I have to agree that a major effect of the action was to keep France and Britain at bay.


62 posted on 02/13/2009 10:33:15 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

You can’t have it both ways; the ruling held the Union in check until Lincoln ignored the Court.


63 posted on 02/13/2009 10:36:01 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

‘I have to agree that a major effect of the action was to keep France and Britain at bay.’

It did set up a political gordian knot for both countries.

But its also useful to remember another big factor at play with both of those nations at that specific 48 month ‘moment in time’’.

The Monitor and the Merramack rendered the entire British and French fleets obsolete from the first moment of their famous battle in the Chesapeak Bay/Hampton Roads harbor.

Kinda hard to break a blockcade when your fleet is nothing but potential drift wood.


64 posted on 02/13/2009 10:40:14 AM PST by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

‘You can’t have it both ways; the ruling held the Union in check until Lincoln ignored the Court.’

Held the Union in check, how specifically?


65 posted on 02/13/2009 10:41:21 AM PST by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: nyconse
"the older folks would talk about Sherman and how babies were burned alive in their beds and...an unmentionable thing (whispered) happened to attractive Southern ladies.."

LOL! Yeah, I feel your pain. Ive been listening to the same Lost Cause mythology for a couple of decades. Abandoned debating them long ago. They are impervious to fact and evidence and come out of the woodwork when their careful constructed world is threatened.

66 posted on 02/13/2009 10:45:28 AM PST by NucSubs ( Cognitive dissonance: Conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between beliefs and actions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated; PA-RIVER; All

EXCELLENT paper from Mises dot org.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_4/18_4_3.pdf

You all might want to read it or bookmark it for later.


67 posted on 02/13/2009 10:47:11 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated ( "The goal is not to solve the problem, but to escalate it . . . ." - Saul Alinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

>>The spirit is admirable, but I really believe it turned out best for everybody, the South most of all. When a regime lasts only four years it’s easy to romanticize and overlook faults, but I don’t think long term rule by that Confederate gang upon the necks of southerners would have worn well for very long.<<

Obviously, we’ll never know how long the Confederacy would have survived. The outcome hasn’t turned out so well either, what with trillion dollar deficits as far as we can imagine, new proposals to decide who lives or dies and usurpation of individual rights.

It might have been better all around for both sides to part AMICABLY than to live together as we do today.


68 posted on 02/13/2009 10:49:23 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
No surprise here. The democrats have always hated Lincoln.

Of course. Wasn't Lincoln the first Republican president? Always remember, Lincoln the Republican free the slaves who belonged to Democrats!!

69 posted on 02/13/2009 10:55:07 AM PST by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

And five months later, Lee surrendered; the war was effectively over when the amendment was enacted.

It was LIncoln’s war to fight and his to win; most of the offenses against the Constitution were restored by the end of Jackson’s term.

If the argument here is that there is no room for another book on this war because all that’s fit to know has already been printed then I will buy your presentation of events.


70 posted on 02/13/2009 11:05:54 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

As long as Dred held sway it was onvious that one couldn’t take another’s property (the slave) legally; of course the Court has no police or prosecutors.


71 posted on 02/13/2009 11:10:32 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
"Which constitutional amendment did Abraham Lincoln personally push through Congress and what did it do?"

I suppose you're referring to the "Corwin" amendment that would have extended slavery for all time.

From a quick search: "In 1861, a proposed amendment, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

72 posted on 02/13/2009 11:12:04 AM PST by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Fair point. Although by the time we get to 1862, the Dredd Scott case had been rendered moot by real world events.


73 posted on 02/13/2009 11:15:18 AM PST by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
"And I don’t think he was a monster or anything, but he DID effect people for generations."

Unfortunately war does that too, not just people. I understand your feelings too, because afterall, if we forget the lessons of history, we are destined to repeat them.

I just finished watching a two-hour PBS program on Lincoln that I recorded the other night. It focused on the myths of Lincoln, and whether he had been made out to be more than he really was. The main historian was Henry Louis Gates Jr., an African-American. I had to laugh at several parts of the program. He interviewed several blacks who believed they had been misled to believe that Lincoln was their "saviour" and the Great Emancipator. My impression was that they were blaming whitey, and their school system for starting and perpetuating that myth. Yet no where in the program did they mention the possibility that a lot of that myth may have begun with their own people, having been passed from freed slaves, down through the generations. God forbid that their own folks would have played a role in creating the myth that is Lincoln.

Then there was the part where Gates, while attending a get-together of the Sons of Confederate Veterans seemed shocked over the fact that blacks had actually fought for the South. Here you have a well-known historian, who acted surprised to see a black family in attendance, honoring their ancestor's memory and the role he played in the Confederacy. It only stands to reason, if there were blacks who owned slaves in this country, (and they did), why is it so hard to believe or accept that blacks would have fought for the South? I've seen it time and time again where educated blacks refuse to accept these facts as truth, choosing instead to perpetuate their own myths about what their black ancestors did. The most interesting fact for me is that they refuse to admit that it was their own African ancestors who sold their people to the slavers.

Unfortunately, the practice by some blacks has been to try to eliminate any trace of history of the Confederacy. On one hand they push to promote their own racial history in this country, cherry-picking the truths they want told, yet they strive to eliminate someone else's because it doesn't fit their idea of what history or heritage is, or should be.

74 posted on 02/13/2009 11:16:36 AM PST by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NucSubs

True-my Dad never discussed it-never win. We took my son to the local museum in Kennesaw GA. He was about six...as we were leaving he talked about the South winning the war...we laughed and told him the truth...but if all you knew is what was presented at the museum...you would believe the South won.


75 posted on 02/13/2009 11:26:10 AM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Which begs the question, if the North was this wonderful place so incredibly sympathetic to the plight of runaway slaves, why DIDN’T these kind folks — all of whom were MY ancestors — shelter and protect them HERE in the U.S.?

Could it have been because MANY large, wealthy and influential NORTHERN interests were providing the FINANCING for the SLAVE TRADE??

Gives a new meaning to HYPOCRICY.


76 posted on 02/13/2009 11:28:20 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I don’t hold it against Lincoln. I am merely speaking to how my Southern relatives talked about it even when I was a little girl...more that 100 years after the end of the war. Personally, I am a great admirer of Lincoln. I think he was one of the greatest presidents of all time and saved the union...I include George Washington, John Adams and Ronald Reagan in this group.

There was a small amount of residual slavery in some mostly North Eastern states also at the time of the Civil War or as my aunties called it “The War of Northern Aggression”. I never heard the term civil war until I went to school in the North after one of our many moves.


77 posted on 02/13/2009 11:30:40 AM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

Whoever it was that placed keyboard keys so close together ought to bne shot!!!


78 posted on 02/13/2009 11:37:31 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
79 posted on 02/13/2009 11:38:09 AM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

In fact, I am sick of these revisionist historians who seek to destroy our American heroes. It’s sick.


80 posted on 02/13/2009 11:38:18 AM PST by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-142 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson