Posted on 02/13/2009 8:05:16 AM PST by Dick Bachert
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...)
I have to agree that a major effect of the action was to keep France and Britain at bay.
You can’t have it both ways; the ruling held the Union in check until Lincoln ignored the Court.
‘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.
‘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?
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.
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.
>>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.
Of course. Wasn't Lincoln the first Republican president? Always remember, Lincoln the Republican free the slaves who belonged to Democrats!!
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.
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.
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.
Fair point. Although by the time we get to 1862, the Dredd Scott case had been rendered moot by real world events.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whoever it was that placed keyboard keys so close together ought to bne shot!!!
In fact, I am sick of these revisionist historians who seek to destroy our American heroes. It’s sick.
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.