Targeting Lost Causers

“Not so much, no. After January 1, 1863 the vast majority of Southern slaves had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Had the rebels laid down their arms and gone back to the Union, that status wouldn't have changed.”

Non-Sequitur,

Again, Half truths! Fault others and then do it yourself

Lincoln cared only about “preserving” the Union

I said: “Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free Negroes.” I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, or for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and reunion, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me”

“And your total acceptance of the Lost Cause Myth is noted as well.”

And your total denial of Lincoln being a 1860’s era Flip Flopping Liberal John Kerry is noted!

Lincoln's dream of a Lily White socialist America are undeniable.

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once-a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. . . .

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform - opposition to the spread of slavery - is most favorable to that separation.

December 1, 1862

“Applications have been made to me by many free Americans of African descent to favor their emigration, with a view to such colonization as was contemplated in recent acts of Congress. Other parties, at home and abroad - some from interested motives, others upon patriotic considerations, and still others influenced by philanthropic sentiments - have suggested similar measures; while, on the other hand, several of the Spanish-American republics have protested against the sending of such colonies to their respective territories. Under these circumstances, I have declined to move any such colony to any state, without first obtaining the consent of its government, with an agreement on its part to receive and protect such emigrants in all the rights of freemen; and I have, at the same time, offered to the several states situated within the tropics, or having colonies there, to negotiate with them, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to favor the voluntary emigration of persons of that class to their respective territories, upon conditions which shall be equal, just, and humane. Liberia and Hayti are, as yet, the only countries to which colonists of African descent from here, could go with certainty of being received and adopted as citizens; and I regret to say such persons, contemplating colonization, do not seem so willing to migrate to those countries, as to some others, nor so willing as I think their interest demands. I believe, however, opinion among them, in this respect, is improving; and that, ere long, there will be an augmented, and considerable migration to both these countries, from the United States”

Short of surrendering entirely and unconditionally to Southern demands there is nothing Lincoln could have done or said that would have gotten approval from the Southern and Northern Democrat papers.

Well, those papers were right that Lincoln's speech and his demand to collect revenue from their imports meant war was coming weren't they?

I found the following additional editorial about Lincoln's inaugural after I posted my 2004 thread above:

In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else. [Source: The New York Day Book]

As I've said to you before, Lincoln's speech sounds like a demand that he wants to sleep with your wife, and if you acquiesce to this, there won't be any trouble. Why should the South have not thought he meant war? He did. Peace would have not given him the revenue to run his government.

"seriously, don't YOU get the hint???"====> you are nothing MORE or LESS than FR's most notorious SERIAL LIAR, FOOL & TURNCOAT to dixie. NOTHING you post is TRUTHFUL, INTELLIGENT or even worth reading.

you can prove NOTHING, as you KNOW nothing except how to TELL CLUMSY LIES & be a south-HATER.

buzz off to DU and/or DAILY KOOKS & leave DU to decent people. PLEASE take "rockrr, the VULGAR LOUT & BIGOT" with you.

free dixie,sw

And what is half-true about that? That the Emancipation Proclamation didn't go into effect on January 1, 1863?

Lincoln cared only about “preserving” the Union

That is one of the few accurate statements I've seen you make.

I said: “Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free Negroes.” I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, or for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and reunion, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me”

Grabbing crap off Southron websites still qualifies for scholarship in the rebel camp, I see. Let's look at the quote, in context:

Executive Mansion,

Washington, ... 1864.

My dear Sir:

Your letter of the 7th was placed in my hand yesterday by Gov. Randall.

To me it seems plain that saying re-union and abandonment of slavery would be considered, if offered, is not saying that nothing else or less would be considered, if offered. But I will not stand upon the mere construction of language.

It is true, as you remind me, that in the Greeley letter of 1862, I said: "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." I continued in the same letter as follows: "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." All this I said in the utmost sincerity; and I am as true to the whole of it now, as when I first said it. When I afterwards proclaimed emancipation, and employed colored soldiers, I only followed the declaration just quoted from the Greeley letter that "I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause" The way these measures were to help the cause, was not to be by magic, or miracles, but by inducing the colored people to come bodily over from the rebel side to ours. On this point, nearly a year ago, in a letter to Mr Conkling, made public at once, I wrote as follows: "But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us they must be prompted by the strongest motives -- even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept." I am sure you will not, on due reflection, say that the promise being made, must be broken on at the first opportunity. I am sure you would not desire me to say, or to leave an inference, that I am ready, whenever convenient, to join in re-enslaving those who shall have served us in consideration of our promise. As matter of morals, could such treachery by any possibility, escape the curses of Heaven, or of any good man? As a matter of policy, to announce such a purpose, would ruin the Union cause itself. All recruiting of colored men would instantly cease, and all colored men now in our service, would instantly desert us-- And rightfully too. Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them? Drive back to the support of the rebellion the material physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, nor any coming administration, can save the Union. Take from us, and give to the enemy, the hundred and thirty, forty, or fifty thousand colored persons now serving us as soldiers, seamen, and laborers, and we can not longer maintain the contest. The party who could elect a President on a War & Slavery Restoration Platform, would, of necessity, lose the colored force; and that force being lost, would be as powerless to save the Union as to do any other impossible thing. It is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force, which may be measured, and estimated as horse-power, and steam power, are measured and estimated. And by measurement, it is more than we can lose, and live. Nor can we, by discarding it, get a white force in place of it. There is a witness in every white mans bosom that he would rather go to the war with having the negro to help him, than to help the enemy against him. It is not the giving of one class for another-- It is simply giving a large force to the enemy, for nothing in return.

In addition to what I have said, allow me to remind you that no one, having control of the rebel armies, or, in fact, having any influence whatever in the rebellion, has offered, or intimated a willingness to, a restoration of the Union, in any event, or on any condition whatever. Let it be constantly borne in mind that no such offer has been made or intimated. Shall we be weak enough to allow the enemy to distract us with an abstract question which he himself refuses to present as a practical one? In the Conkling letter before mentioned, I said: "Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then to declare that you will not fight to free negroes. I repeat this now. If Jefferson Davis wishes, for himself, of for the benefit of his friends at the North, to know what I would do if he were to offer peace and re-union, saying nothing about slavery, let him try me.

And the quote, in context, from the Conkling letter is:

"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes."

The south had set its war plans into motion by the time Lincoln assumed office. This would be akin to negotiating the barn door after the horses have fled. The south wanted no part of "negotiations for peace" - they were only interested in terms of surrender.

Citation, please. Where exactly are these war plans? And which side would have no part of negotiations?

From correspondence to Buchanan from the South Carolina Commissioners, Dec 28, 1860:

Sir: -- We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are "authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington."

Senator Jefferson Davis on the floor of the Senate, January 10, 1861:

For the few days which I remain, I am willing to labor in order that catastrophe shall be as little as possible destructive to public peace and prosperity. If you desire at this last moment to avert civil war, so be it; it is better so. If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we cannot live peaceably together, to leave with the rights that we had before we were united, since we cannot enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us, drawn from the associations of our struggles from the revolutionary era to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us.

From the resolution passed by the Confederate Congress proposing negotiations with the United States:

Resolved, etc., That said commissioners be further instructed to present to the Government of the United States assurances of the sincere wish on the part of this Government to preserve the most friendly relations between the two Governments and the States comprising the same, and to settle, by peaceful negotiations all matters connected with the public property and the indebtedness of the Government of the United States existing before the withdrawal of any of the States of this Confederacy; and to this end said commissioners are hereby fully empowered to negotiate with the Government of the United States in reference to said matters, and to adjust the same upon principles of justice, equality, and right.

From the Confederate Commissioners to Seward, March 12, 1861:

With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.

Lincoln's dream of a Lily White socialist America are undeniable.

It's entirely deniable, since it's based on Southron myth.

But again, as I asked earlier, based on conditions at the time where was Lincoln so far off base? What were their choices? There was slavery, of course. The condition that Davis and Lee and Jackson believed was all they were good for. A life of labor, being bought or sold at will, people not property. I can see where you would see that as being preferable to life as free men in Africa.

And for those blacks who were not slaves, what was there for them? They were not and could not citizens - Roger Taney had seen to that. They had no rights - again thanks to Taney. They couldn't vote in Southern states, move freely into Southern states, get an education in Southern states, pursue the occupation of their choice in Southern states. In many Southern states emancipation required an act of the leigislature. In Mississippi, emancipation was illegal altogether due to a court order. So the life of a free black in the South was little better than that of a slave.

And as bad as things were for blacks down South, it was almost as bad for them up North. Legally they had no rights. They couldn't vote in most states. They couldn't serve on juries. They were treated with hatred and suspicion in most areas. And Lincoln knew that. He knew he wasn't going to change the hearts and minds of people, and that the bigotry shown to freed blacks would only grow worse with the end of slavery. What really was there for them to look forward to in the U.S.? So instead Lincoln urged them to consider emigration. Returning to Africa free from the bigotry they faced in the U.S. Able to enjoy the basic human, God-given rights that Taney was hell-bent on denying them in the U.S. Able to create their own society, go to their own schools, run their own government, work in the professions of their choice, all things denied them in the South and much of the North. Why is that such an evil idea? Can you answer that, or will you continue to barf up crap from LOS websites?

Milton said that it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. I have no idea if Lincoln ever read Milton, but he certainly would have approved of the sentiment. You may well think that slavery was better for blacks in the U.S. at the time. I wonder how many of them would have agreed with you?

Like I said - nothing more than a leftist agent provocateur...

Well, those papers were right that Lincoln's speech and his demand to collect revenue from their imports meant war was coming weren't they?

Are you sure it wasn't his insistence that mail deliveries would continue wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back?

In his speech, Lincoln was doing nothing more or less than staying the government would continue. Government facilities would be retained. Offices would be filled, mail delivered, taxex collected, all as they had done before. Lincoln also made it clear that, with the exception of continuing to retain government property, none of this would be done in a manner that would inflame passions. His goal was a peaceful resolution. If only Davis' goal had been the same.

Read all those quotes you posted, and the let's look at what Davis actually sent Lincoln:

"For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States."

First and foremost, it's clear that there is no offer to negotiate anything on the primary bone of contention - Southern secession. The message makes it clear that recognition of confederate independence is the only item on that particular table. Lincoln's position on an end to the illegal secession wasn't open for discussion. So right off the bat it's a demand for Lincoln's surrender. And only then, only if Lincoln had given the rebel representatitves the only thing Davis cared about, was there a vague offer to talk about things "interesting to both nations..." If payment for debt wasn't interesting to Davis then it wasn't a topic for discussion. Payment for property stolen? Sorry, if it was not interesting to the confederacy the it was off the table. So if you say that the confederacy really, really wanted a peaceful resolution to the situation, all you have to do is look how the whole discussion of negotiations got progressively watered down to realize that a peacefully negotiated settlement was the last thing Davis wanted.

Why do you spend your life debating idiots like me about a useless 140 year old civil war? Are you trying to prove something? What? I smell fear......Me thinks though dost protest to much..

“And what is half-true about that? That the Emancipation Proclamation didn't go into effect on January 1, 1863?”

Your whole premise is a half truth!

Emancipation Proclamation was a War measure and only applied to areas not controlled by the Union! Why? Did he view them unfavorably?

Again, Your premise is false! He only cared about restoring the Union and would sell his own mother to do so.

What did he say at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference?

“Mr. Stephens then inquired as to what would be status of the states in regard to their representation in Congress and President Lincoln replied that they would have their full rights restored under the Constitution. This would mean that there would be no punishment or reconstruction imposed. President Lincoln then returned to the slavery question and stated that it was never his intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed and he would not have done so during the war, except that it became a military necessity. He had always been in favor of prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories but never thought immediate emancipation in the states where it already existed was practical. He thought there would be “many evils attending” the immediate ending of slavery in those states. Judge Campbell then asked Mr. Seward if he thought there would be good race relations in the South upon immediate emancipation and inquired about what would happen to the freed slaves. President Lincoln responded by telling an anecdote about an Illinois farmer and how he avoided any effort in finding food for his hogs, and his method would apply to the freed slaves, in other words “let’em root!”

This is a accurate view of the common Confederate soldier CSA Capt. William E. Widemeyer, 6th Missouri Inf. writes to his wife at Guntown (just south of Corinth), MS AUGUST 5, 1862

...although I am naturally of buoyant spirits, I cannot help but feel displeased and low-spirited...but look to the bright side of the future, trusting that the vile invader of our sacred rights will soon meet with just retribution for his tyrannical oppression, then, and not ‘til then, will the dark cloud that now obscures our country be dispelled, and peace and prosperity smile on our [Southern] land.

Why do you spend your life debating idiots like me about a useless 140 year old civil war?

Hobby.

Hobby.

Are all neo-Yankees as pathetic as you are? Get a life.

Emancipation Proclamation was a War measure and only applied to areas not controlled by the Union! Why? Did he view them unfavorably?

As a war measure those were the only areas he could order the slaves to be freed. The Confiscation Acts gave the government the authority to seize private property without compensation if it was being used to further the rebel war effort. The Emancipation Proclamation was an offshoot of that. Areas not in rebellion could not fall under that order. To end slavery completely throughout the U.S. required the 13th Amendment.

Again, Your premise is false! He only cared about restoring the Union and would sell his own mother to do so.

Well, his mother was dead but once again you have made, apparently by accident, a completely accurate statement - Lincoln's sole goal in fighting the Southern Rebellion was the preservation of the Union. He made it clear time and again that was his sole purpose, and I have no reason to doubt that. An end to slavery was a fortunate outcome of the defeat of the Southern rebellion, but never the Union goal to begin with.

What did he say at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference?

One additional thing he did say at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference was slavery was dead. Lincoln might agree to some money to compensate slave owners, but their property was gone and would never be returned.

Are all neo-Yankees as pathetic as you are? Get a life.

You spend your time mooning and dreaming about Southern secession, fantasizing about how wonderful it will be, and you say that I need a life?

I’m 2 to 3 hours every week. You are 7x24X365. Scary....

Although I would generally agree that it seems fruitless to agonize over something that concluded so conclusively so long ago I find it amusing that you would use such an opportunity not to raise the level of discourse, but to bash.

Me thinks (sic) though (sic) dost (sic) protest to (sic) much...

I don't know which is more pathetic - your projection or your butchering of the quote...

“But again, as I asked earlier, based on conditions at the time where was Lincoln so far off base?”

But again, Lincoln's view{s} of our Constitution differed greatly from Madison>Than man you use in his defense!

General Lee's view is more in line with the founders than any Radical Republican and you know it!

Lexington, Virginia
15 Dec., 1866

Sir — Although your letter ... has been before me for some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to a want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence.

As a citizen of the South, I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it. The influence of current opinion in Europe upon the current policies of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue in the United States, involving not only constitutional freedom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright.

Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to relieve it from the mass of prejudice and passion, with which it has been covered by party spirit. I am conscious of the compliment conveyed in your request for my opinion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion, which was commenced by the founders of the Constitution and has been continued to the present day.

I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional party of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it a chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.

The New England States, whose citizens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern states, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threatened the disruption of the Union unless war should be discontinued.

The assertion of this right has been repeatedly made by their politicians when their party was weak, and Massachusetts, the leading state in hostility to the South, declares in the preamble to her constitution, that the people of that commonwealth “have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free sovereign and independent state, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, or may hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress Assembled.”

Such has been in substance the language of other State governments, and such the doctrine advocated by the leading men of the country for the last seventy years. Judge [Salmon P.] Chase, the present Chief Justice of the U.S., as late as 1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he “knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a state to perform its stipulations,” thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of state action.

But I will not weary you with this unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable because the judgement of reason has been displaced by the arbitrament of war, waged for the purpose as avowed of maintaining the union of the states. If, therefore, the result of the war is to be considered as having decided that the union of the states is inviolable and perpetual under the Constitution, it naturally follows that it is as incompetent for the general government to impair its integrity by the exclusion of a state, as for the states to do so by secession; and that the existence and rights of a state by the Constitution are as indestructible as the union itself. The legitimate consequence then must be the perfect equality of rights of all the states; the exclusive right of each to regulate its internal affairs under rules established by the Constitution, and the right of each state to prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage.

The South has contended only for the supremacy of the Constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it. Virginia to the last made great efforts to save the union, and urged harmony and compromise. Senator [Stephen A.] Douglas [of Illinois], in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including [Sen. Robert] Toombs [of Georgia] and [Sen. Jefferson] Davis [of Mississippi], expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator [John] Crittenden of Kentucky as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the republican party, and that the only difficulty in the way of an amiable adjustment was with the republican party. Who then is responsible for the war?

Although the South would have preferred any honourable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the Constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia.

In other respects, I trust that the Constitution may undergo no change, but that it may be handed down to succeeding generations in the form we have received it from our forefathers. ...

With sentiments of great respect, I remain your obt. servant.

though=thou