Retraction For Our 1863 Editorial Calling Gettysburg Address 'Silly Remarks': Editorial

Patriots-News ^ | November 15, 2013

[BroJoeK]

onedoug, post #4: "Yet even in spite of the tragedy of damned slavery which led to that horrible war, as in the least it is, had I not already been there, I would have gone South."

donmeaker, post #19: "If it was learned that Lee actually made a slave of his own child, then his face should be chiseled off Stone Mountain.
That kind of example would be one to show the nature of 'honor' in the worst kind of tyrant."

onedoug, post #20: "And that has to do with what I wrote how?"

Answer: so, you would join the cause of slavery, FRiend?

[onedoug]

Yet even in spite of the tragedy of damned slavery which led to that horrible war, as in the least it is, had I not already been there, I would have gone South.

Yes sir.

[BroJoeK]

onedoug: "Yes sir."

So, you would fight & die in defense of Southern slavery?

[Partisan Gunslinger]

It boggles my mind how any lover of freedom could ever consider slavery acceptable.

[onedoug]

I already answered you.
Have a great life.

[Benito Cereno]

My, aren’t you a peach. Slavery is, was, and always will be an abomination, and yet you would willingly lay down your life for it. Despicable.

[CodeToad]

” you would willingly lay down your life for it.”

Liar, and you know damned well he wouldn’t but you just want to bash the South. Fact is, you sound just like a liberal that claims the US has no right to exist because she once had slavery.

[Benito Cereno]

You need to read his posts. Pushed several times, he had no hesitation in saying he would fight (and in what war does one not risk death), not for Southern honor, not for mama's fried chicken and gravy, not for the Southern way of life, but for slavery . And to parse his words for him by claiming he would fight, but not die, for slavery, is nonsensical.

[donmeaker]

Would you order people who didn’t want to die in defense of slavery shot?

[CodeToad]

NO ONE, on any of these threads, has ever said they would fight for slavery. What you liberals do is lie and put words in their mouths. If they say they would have fought for the South for any reason you people claim they would fight for slavery.

We’re not as stupid as liberals think we are.

[CodeToad]

“Would you order people who didn’t want to die in defense of slavery shot?”

Back at you: Would you order people shot who defended States’ rights?

[CodeToad]

“tragedy of damned slavery which led to that horrible war”

Slavery wasn’t the only issue of the time. In fact, Lincoln himself said the war was not about slavery. Read his inaugural address.

[donmeaker]

Of course the genes flowed the other way too, but white women who had children by black men routinely had their babies killed.

So southern slavery depended not only on theft, kidnapping, rape and torture, but also outright murder.

What a wonderful system you support. /sarc

[donmeaker]

So what is the other issue? Tariffs were low, being written by the south. US fort construction was mostly in the south.

The south had run the whole country for years. What could they complain about? That people didn’t love them enough?

[onedoug]

That isn’t what I said, but what you will.

[djf]

You have to understand how much the early law talked about “property”.

Rights - all kinds of rights - had to do with the concept of “property”.

In early publications, like “Forms of Action at Common Law”, the most prevalent theme is “property”, it’s ownership and control, acquisition, sale, etc.

So much so that the word “trespass” isn’t just a singular term meaning someone walked into your front yard. All sorts of rights could have “trespass” committed against them. People today are astounded that a wife might sue her husbands mistress for alienation of affection, but it fits into the idea of rights themselves being “property” under the laws that existed then.

And make no mistake.

The Constitution was composed and adopted under precisely those ideas.

[BroJoeK]

donmeaker: "Would you order people who didn’t want to die in defense of slavery shot?"

Sorry, I don't "get" it.
How could I ever be in some position of authority in a Slave Power state, such that I might order army deserters shot?
It makes no sense, so maybe I'm taking your question wrong?

[donmeaker]

I just think the question ‘would you shoot others that disagreed with you?’ is a better question than ‘who do you support?”

[donmeaker]

The war wasn’t about slavery for the Union. It was about slavery for the insurrection.

[BroJoeK]

donmeaker: "I just think the question ‘would you shoot others that disagreed with you?’ is a better question than ‘who do you support?' "

Well then... as you well know, I support the war to destroy the Slave Power.
As for how many northern soldiers were ever shot for desertion, I don't know of any.
Indeed, executions of any kind, for whatever reasons, in either army, were pretty rare as I understand it.

This is in stark contrast to, let's pick the old Soviet example: in WWII Communists assigned whole battalions to follow their main force and shoot any soldiers they caught running away from battle.
Nothing like that is ever recorded in American history, and rightly so.

Does that answer your question?