Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
It’s a good thing all they were was specks you dind’t have to worry about, but knew all about and supported the existence of anyways...
Wow, black soldeiers who fought for a society that claimed to be genteel yet would have enslaved them on a heartbeas notice, madeopen plans to enslave the Chinese railroad workers, made open plans to invade sout america and enslave them too...yeah, I’d say they were pretty stupid.
What do YOU call people who fight for slavery? Heroes?
Sounds like you are the brainwashed on
ENSLAVE DIXIE: BURN IT TO THE GROUND
WTS
Yawn.
N-s, are you onboard with this yahoo - "RaceBigot"? Does he speak for you?
Eventually if the south had won, a strong central government would have taken root in the confederacy, or it would have further splintered itself into a bunch of weak nation states similar to the balkins.
And as I see it eventually the racism that would have continued in the guise of slavery would have at some point turned into the bloodiest rebellion of all time or a holocaust rivalling the state sponsored massacres of the soviets.
Neo confederates love to tell us that eventually slavery would have ceased in the south, and I believe they actually believe that is possible.
I also believe that it is a bit of wishful thinking on their part to believe that some greater form of oppression on injustice would not have replaced slavery than what happened in this country after the civil war.
Take for instance what might have happened in the confederacy if Communism had found it’s way into the hearts of slaves and former slaves throughout the south. Without a strong central government to prevent such an uprising a balkanised confederacy would find itself quickly overwhelmed by a bloody rebellion and literally begging for US support to prevent an overthrow from within.
Where as a strong central government style confederacy would find itself literally exterminating a large section of it’s workforce in an effort to remain in power, or seceding some of their power to a communist block.
There are worse possible outcomes that the south avoided by remaining part of the United States, but only neo confederates are naive enough to believe that they would not have occured if the south had won.
More of the same, and invalid for the same reason.
In addition, Lincoln's rationale in suppressing the Maryland Militia (which was following orders) and State government fails any constitutional test, since Lincoln was actively engaged in suppressing the self-government of a State, and the right of its People peaceably to assemble. The federal government, then and now, was bound to guarantee the States a republican form of government, but Lincoln violated that duty by suppressing Maryland's republican government, because he didn't like their politics and wanted to crush the whole State.
Maryland had the rights of a State, and its citizens were the People of that State. Lincoln crushed them.
Maryland enjoyed status and rights that the dissenting minority in Tennessee simply did not have, because the dissident, Unionist Tennesseans were not a State and not a People perforce.
Ergo your analogy is false, and your exercise in phony moral equilibration is deceptive.
But then you knew that when you set out to blur and distort the issues.
Where’s the book?
Do boobs like cowboyway and Rustabout speak for you?
25 posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:57:15 PM by 4CJ
Occam's Razor invites us to decide, as a practical matter, whether Lincoln's public support of the Corwin Amendment was a sincerely made offer in the interest of public peace, or whether it was a necessary political imposture to deal with attempts to prevent war between the remaining and the departing States. The measures Lincoln took in secret must, I think, betoken the more sincerely held motives, by Occam, and their divergence from the purposes of the Corwin Amendment and its other sponsors must throw the greatest suspicion on Lincoln's support of Corwin and other measures for peace.
Lincoln had struggled in 1855 with the constitutional and legal impediments to eliminating slavery, as he told his correspondents at the time, and he had discovered no legal way to accomplish abolition. What remains, then, is to realize that as early as 1855, Lincoln had settled on war as the only solution that would allow an abolitionist champion to impose emancipation on the resistant planter class of the South. As that is precisely what, in the event, transpired at a cost of a million lives, then Occam invites us to accept that war was indeed Lincoln's policy from the outset, and that the Civil War was his means to his end, and that he meant to frustrate Corwin from the first, and to dissemble his genuine, grimmer intentions, which the public would never have supported had they known.
I think you misread Lincoln intent in supporting a 13th Amendment- The Corwin Amendment.
He did it to avert war, but also to encourage further debate on the issue as well.
The southern states decided that if they created a new country where slavery was legal, They didn’t have to pass the 13th amendment at all
Fremont's failed candidacy in 1856 may have convinced Lincoln and his closest friends that thereafter Lincoln would have to do it himself.
If this is what actually happened, then a whole correspondence about the Republican campaign of 1856 remains to be discovered, examined or reexamined, and integrated.
The implication here is that, from the beginning, the Republican Party was a political crusade undertaken on a platform that included a secret war plank.
By 1861, the country was riven and the conversation was about over. The Southern States were collecting their hats and coats and calling for their carriages.
The 1859 John Brown raid, while Lincoln did not endorse it or bemoan Brown's capture and execution (very conspicuous, leading "others" -- including almost the entire New England intellectual establishment -- did, publicly and for the record) had destroyed the last remnants of civil union and fellow-citizenship (as per T.R. Fehrenbach and other historians I've cited in the past). When some people tell other people, "we wish you were in fact dead in the ashes of your houses; you deserve it," the community is finished.
In other words you cannot find proof that Lincoln endorsed slavery.
Lincoln was a masterful politician, especially if as you suggest he forced the south to secede and started a war even before he took the oath of office as president.
Quite a feat by any stretch of the imagination.
I think that, in the very unlikelihood that the south had pulled it off, your second scenario would have been the result. If we are to accept the southron’s premise that “states rights” were the one & only impetus for the secession, then it is logical to assume that it wouldn’t be long before they would yearn for respite from the oppressive confederate government and splinter into smaller groups.
This, of course, just makes them riper targets for the nations that sought to conquer the US. I’d have given them no more than five years before they learned the true meaning of conquered nation status and subjugation.
Every statement of his that is adduced to show that he did, always had a tactical or political context. No, I've never seen anything that convinced me that he actually did.
Once he picked up the issue as a conspicuous political theme in 1854, when he challenged Sen. Stephen A. Douglas over Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act, as a way of putting his own name before the public and the Illinois legislature as a Whig candidate for junior U.S. Senator for the State of Illinois (the seat eventually went to Lyman Trumbull as a compromise candidate), he never laid it down and never compromised, as far as I can tell.
Lincoln was a masterful politician, especially if as you suggest he forced the south to secede and started a war even before he took the oath of office as president.
Well, all students of the era agree he was a master politician. In a war environment, he made himself the undisputed, absolute master of the United States Government. Nobody, not even Chief Justice Taney, ever succeeded in reversing Lincoln on anything.
I'd go so far as to say that Lincoln's success, and that of his party and political circle after his death, illuminates a problem of democracy: the susceptibility of even carefully and artfully checked-and-balanced representative democracy to the workings of faction and cabal. Madison and later Calhoun lost sleep over the problem of faction. Faction eventually burned the Republic to the ground and slew many of its defenders in the process, by turning other defenders against them.
Now we have lobbyocracy and plutocracy and bankocracy and lawyerocracy. People participate in voting in declining numbers, the Congress is a joke full of self-seeking grafters and poltroons, and the Government, driven by a cabal, is overreaching every protection conceived by the Framers.
Got any suggestions?
"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"
It’s refreshing to see a reb admirer admit that Jeff Davis’s regime might not have been led by angels in the form of slaveowners after all. As far as the legitimacy of the slavers’ rebellion, right makes might which makes more right. It’s not Lincoln’s fault that the Confederacy wasn’t run by a better class of men. They just didn’t make slaveowners and menstealers in the 1860s like they did in the old days of Assyria.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
I suppose that some may believe that the fact that human beings are not able to own other human beings any longer in America is disgraceful, but that would be a minority view.
shame on you for thinking that BLACKS are STUPID. (that should make you lots of friends among the HATERS/BIGOTS of FR.)
free dixie,sw
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.