Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
You have quoted the 300 newspaper figure yourself. All I'm asking for are the specifics. I don't even need all 300; 150 will do.
Maybe they just don't have your imagination.
Short answer: if it had simply been a matter of morality Lincoln would have said so and acted accordingly.
Slightly longer response: This tentacle of the overall debate comes courtesy of jeffersondem who routinely hoists (foists?!) the canard, “...we can forever dismiss the notion that Lincoln and the North fought for the high moral principle of “freeing the slaves.”” or the startlingly insipid “Even after secession, the United States remained the most powerful slave nation in North America, perhaps the world.” or my “favorite”: “If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?”
No matter how many times he is corrected and educated, he persists with these red herrings.
Lincoln had a duty and responsibility to defend and preserve the Union. At a point in the war he determined that freeing slaves in occupied areas was a priority. That there was an element of morality attached to his acts does not diminish the legitimacy or urgency of his actions.
“At a point in the war he (Lincoln) determined that freeing slaves in occupied areas was a priority.”
Apparently that is when the magic happened. The war took on a high moral purpose: as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.
President Lincoln announced slavery in the Confederate States had become ungodly, but that slavery in the United States would remain godly.
Therefore, troops from the Union slave state of Delaware fought in the Confederate slave state of North Carolina “to free the slaves.”
Troops from the Union slave state of West Virginia fought in the Confederate slave state of Virginia “to free the slaves.”
Troops from the Union slave state of Maryland fought in the Confederate slave state of South Carolina “to free the slaves.”
Troops from the Union slave state of Kentucky fought in the Confederate slave state of Tennessee “to free the slaves.”
And so forth and so on.
There you go again. Why don't you take a New Years resolution to stop lying (or at least cut back)?
Brother Bull Snipe: “Yes, the United States (after secession) was the most powerful slave holding nation in North America with about 430,000 slaves.”
And so, critic answers critic.
Quote please?
My comments were general in nature, not specific to this thread (or any individual ;^). FWIW, the topic of antebellum 'States rights' was near & dear to my heart, during the early 2000's (IIRC, you & I threw some zingers back & forth during that period ;^). I can't remember the number of times I saw government actions defended, simply because someone thought they were moral, or the number of times I got hammered as a "slaver", "slavocrat", etc. And, in all honesty, I would hammer right back (sorry that you were likely on the receiving end of some of that).
Fast forward to 2019. The examples I listed ('Obama-Care', etc.) are 20th or 21st century issues; many current political proposals seem to be promoted on the basis of morality, with no thought whatsoever regarding the actual 'law of the land'. Government power seems to be 'available' any time it's required, via implication or judicial opinion, even for Republican proposals. And some current issues may be similar to points of contention from the early-mid 1800's.
How do I look at current events? If some issue pops up, do I just automatically support it (or oppose it?) based on gut-level feelings, or some previous moral judgement I made regarding similar historical events? Or do I make some (potentially difficult) decision(s) based on 'the law of the land', or a different moral evaluation?
We could easily face multiple "sanctuary State" issues over the next few years. Based on a previous judgement that "nullification" is wrong (as per 1830's South Carolina), do I also oppose some future "2nd Amendment sanctuary State"? Flip side of the coin: if I thought "nullification" circa 1832 was justifiable, do I offer knee-jerk support to California as a "sanctuary State" for illegals? The NRA was recently designated a "domestic terrorist" group by a local government; how would I react to a similar decision, involving any similar citizens' group, issued by the federal government? The Left is already talking about 'packing' the Supreme Court, at their first opportunity. If that actually happens, how will I view any decisions made by a 'packed' court?
In such circumstances, it may be important to dial in more than a gut-level 'right or wrong' feeling, or the fact that 'some @sshole' (like yours truly ;^) might have been arguing 'something similar' online.
But since we're all here on FreeRepublic, I'm probably preaching to the choir...
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted there. I’ve grown a bit weary of quick sloganistic retorts in place of reasoned responses. What you’ve provided on this thread has definitely been the latter.
In my view, questions regarding things like “sanctuary cities” (both for the purposes of illegal immigration and for gun control) need to be subjected to “reasonability tests” - would these arrangements or changes lead to a net good result or are they designed for partisan advantage? If one is regarded as necessarily bad does it follow that the other must be as well? Or should they be measured on their relative merits and not subjected to simplistic cookie-cutter litmus tests? And finally, do they follow established principles and precedent or do they run counter to convention?
In my old neighborhood some hispanics bought a nearby house. They seemed friendly and sociable enough and my inclination was (as is my nature) was to live and let live.
Their demeanor was a pretense however and within a year they had over a dozen people in addition to their own family living on the property. I began to have theft problems (there was only a waist high cyclone fence separating us). I asked the homeowner what was up and he shined me on. So I called the building department and inquired about the additions I could see appearing in my neighborhood. The homeowner was forced to demolish an illegal addition to their house and an outbuilding that was being used as an apartment/flophouse.
The following year that city joined the sanctuary city mob and my neighbor resumed his landlord operation. Crime increased and I chose to leave rather than fight.
Now I’m watching the arc of activity in Virginia (second amendment sanctuaries). Does (should) intellectual honesty compel me to oppose these 2nd amendment sanctuary cities? Regardless of my “feelings” on the matter? I don’t think so and here’s why:
Sanctuary cities (for the purpose of illegal immigration) are there to thwart constitutional law. They are there to thumb noses at established order. But sanctuary cities (for the purpose of 2nd amendment) are there to defend otherwise lawful citizens who are exercising their rights from unconstitutional infringement. My constitutional exercise harms no one but their unconstitutional practices do harm to the entire community. My .02
My hope is to continue reasoned debate in the upcoming year. There is going to be plenty to chew on!
Happy New Year!
The issues you described with your neighbor are similar to those faced by a close friend, who still lives out in California. He & his wife both have extended family in the area, and had never planned to leave, but they're actually talking about it now. I guess it's just another example of 'current events' reaching a point, where decisions are forced on you.
I agree that a 'cookie cutter' (or 'one-size-fits-all') approach can be less than ideal. You've seen a lot of what I post, which (for reasons obvious to me, at least ;^) tends to focus on the States, as part of the country's original "checks & balances" system. So my 'instinct', based on history, law, etc., might be to look to the States for the defense of liberty, as our country deals with today's problems. (I bet everybody reading this is laughing right now! ;^) For the most part, the States ain't what they used to be! (No offense intended, to folks who are proud of their States, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of Patrick Henrys or Ben Franklins in our State capitols.)
You do see the counties stepping up at times, as is currently happening in Virginia - not sure if there's a substantial legal foundation there, in this country's law, or even going back to English common law (something outside my experience). It may be that someone who's done some reading in that area can contribute something (I don't remember seeing many applicable references/discussions on these CW threads).
Speaking of which, it was kind of funny, citing Madison back-and-forth with OIFVeteran (I'll see your 2 Madison quotes & raise you 3 more! ;^). Kind of makes you wonder if there might be some wisdom there for our times, since Madison wasn't a strong advocate of secession, but not generally a proponent of Big Government either. Another subject that pops up (in the news & on these threads) is the potential for some good constitutional amendments, using the route that bypasses Congress ('The Swamp'). I think Bull Snipe and I agreed that balanced budget & term limits amendments might help preserve freedom in this country. But a lot of conservatives seem to fear that the State-based amendment process could somehow be 'hijacked', with dire results (don't see that myself, but the fear is out there).
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts...
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...”
If this is true - and there are statements by Lincoln and others that raise doubts - then we can forever dismiss the notion that Lincoln and the North fought the war to “free the slaves.”
“Quote please?”
My post 264 contained several deliberately preposterous statements, including these three in succession:
“war took on a high moral purpose: as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.
“President Lincoln announced slavery in the Confederate States had become ungodly, but that slavery in the United States would remain godly.
“Therefore, troops from the Union slave state of Delaware fought in the Confederate slave state of North Carolina “to free the slaves.””
Thank you for calling attention to this kind of wrongheaded thinking which is often used to distract from Lincoln’s war upon the concept of consent of the governed.
You mean lies?
>>rockrr wrote, “No, but it is obvious that you have. It must suck to hate this nation the way you do. Why don’t you go find some shithole more to your liking?”
It love my nation, Jackass. I despise those who have trashed and pillaged it, and those who are trashing and pillaging it. It is obvious you are as happy as a kid in a candy store as long as the central planners, influence peddlars, and crony capitalists have their way.
Did you never wonder why so many Marxists love Lincoln? It must suck to be so willingly ignorant of history as you are.
Mr. Kalamata
Happy New Year to you too.
Joey pretends to be an expert on most everything, but is clueless about the facts on, well, most everything. In general, he follows the lead of the Marxists who have wrested control of our education system, scientific establishment, historical record, and government . . . almost forgot, and Press.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Undoubtedly, Kalamata is thoroughly anti-American, but in the sense of, for examples, a Ken Ham (Ark Encounter) or Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) -- these people have declared & waged intellectual war not just on the USA, but on the very idea of reality itself as we perceive it, scientifically."
See what I mean? You may not be aware of this, but Joey's heroes are anti-Christian, anti-capitalist atheists, like the climate-change pushing Michael Shermer, who teaches our children this kind of trash:
If Joey had a clue about the scientific method, he would realize Michael Behe is one of the most brilliant scientists who ever lived (humble, too!) Joey has bought into the ape-to-man just-so stories of the atheists, like Charlie Darwin. You have to be dumber than a box of rocks (scientifically-speaking) to believe in evolution these days, after more than a century of feverish searching and digging by scientists has revealed no evidence for it.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Perhaps with some justification they feel assaulted by blatant scientific atheists like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and strike back with their own equally aggressive anti-science ideology/theology."
Can you believe that? Joey's hero is another "scientific" atheist named Michael Shermer. LOL! You fellows are too much!
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Ultimately, of course, it's pure nonsense and nobody I've posted against here is more deeply immersed & steeped in it than Kalamata, nobody more tireless or ruthless in defending it."
Yes, I love the Christian heritage of our nation, and the Christian heritage of modern science. Joey name-drops Christianity from time-to-time, like a slick politician, but that is about as Christian as he gets.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "If you wish to grasp the precise moment in history where Kalamata's & our views part company, it might be here: in historical reality our Christian Founders were leaders in and exemplars of the Enlightenment Age, they chiefly define what the term "Enlightenment" means. But in Kalamata's world-view our Christian Founders were victims of and opposed to the atheistic European Enlightenment, while their success in framing our nation came despite, not because of, their Enlightenment ideals."
Our Founding Fathers created this great nation in spite of many of the so-called "Enlightenment" figures, because they ignored the loony push for "reason" (which can mean anything,) and, rather, bound our Constitution to our Christian heritage and the Ten Commandments.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "So Kalamata is not just pro-Confederate and anti-American, he's also anti-reality as we understand it."
I am pro-science, pro-history, pro-American, pro-Christian, and, most of all, PRO-TRUTH. Joey wouldn't know the truth if it whopped him upside the head.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "My own views on science, so far as I can tell, are identical with those of traditional main-line Protestant and Roman Catholic teaching, namely, in sum, that science can theorize whatever it wants, but God created and rules everything."
Joey is pro-establishment -- in science, in history, in religion, and in government. Ask Galileo how that establishment science, religion and government worked out.
Mr. Kalamata
“You mean lies?”
I would not say that people who believe Lincoln “fought to free the slaves” are lying.
No, I would not say that. Confused perhaps.
You couldn’t be more wrong. I have found BroJoek’s comments on these and other posts to be very informative and well sourced. Many times he has sent me searching through my books or the internet to verify his posting and I have so far found them to be accurate. Unlike other posters on this site that like to selectively site sources (looking at you jeffersondem).
As far as his world view and religious beliefs go I can’t really comment on those. There are many Christians I know that believe the earth is billions of years old and that evolution did happen.
As far as the founding fathers, denying they were influenced by the enlightenment is denying historic facts. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were confirmed Deist.
And though only the most hardcore liberal would deny the influence of Christianity on our country it was not the only influence. Our country is the end result of three major cultural influences, Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and the enlightenment. All three helped create (IMHO) the greatest country that has ever existed on this planet, the United States of America. It has produced a country that now allows the most individual freedom and highest standard of living human beings have ever seen. It’s not perfect, but then nothing on this planet is, but I love it and would defend it with my life.
I provided references. If you are too lazy to look them up, that is your problem, not mine. However, I will be kind enough to repeat the first reference, which cites others in the footnote:
"During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln tried to preserve the tenets of a constitutional democratic republic as set forth by the founders in the Constitution. This proved to be a daunting challenge. After all, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a power given explicitly to Congress, and his administration arrested more than 14,000 political prisoners and suppressed more than 300 newspapers.[1]" [David W. Bulla, "Abraham Lincoln and Press Suppression Reconsidered." American Journalism, Vol.26, Iss.4; Fall, 2009, p.11]
This is the footnote:
[1] The figure of 14,000 political prisoners comes from Mark E. Neely Jr., The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 232. F. C. Ainsworth counted 13,535 for the period Edwin M. Stanton was the secretary of war. Neely could not find how Ainsworth arrived at this number, so he tried to re-do the count. Neely concluded it was impossible to get an exact number. He noted: "It is clear that far more than 13,535 civilians were arrested" (The Fate of Liberty, 130). Neely stopped counting at 14,000. Another historian deduced the total to be approximately 16,000. Another estimate found as many as 38,000 political prisoners in the war. As for newspaper suppression, Shelby Foote cited the 300 figure without providing a clue as to where he obtained the figure. See Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volume Two (New York: Vintage Books, 1986, reprint of 1963 Random House edition), 635. Foote may have obtained that total from David Herbert Donald, who made a similar claim. Donald said most of the cases of suppression involved newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration's policies or supported peace initiatives. See David Herbert Donald, ed., Why the North Won the Civil War (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1960), 86. But the Foote-Donald total is almost certainly too conservative. Stephen E. Towne found sixty-nine cases of press suppression in Indiana and Dennis F. Saak discovered seventy-four in Missouri. Saak's total does not include a single case in 1865. Chances are that if 132 cases occurred in two of the twenty-five states that stayed in the Union, the total for the war far exceeded 300. However, there is no way to know with any degree of certainty just how many cases occurred. See Towne, "Works of Indiscretion: Violence against the Press in Indiana during the Civil War," Journalism History, 31, 3, October 2005,138-149. See Saak, "Newspaper Suppressions in Missouri during the Civil War," master's thesis, University of Missouri, 1974."
Bulla's journal article can be accessed here:
You can borrow the following cited books from the Internet Archive with a free account:
Neely: The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties
Foote: The Civil War: A Narrative. Volume Two
Donald: Why the North Won the Civil War
Download another cited reference from here:
Towne: Works of Indiscretion: Violence against the Press in Indiana during the Civil War
[click on "View/Open" to download]
I don't have a link to Saak's Master's Thesis.
Mr. Kalamata
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “You couldn’t be more wrong. I have found BroJoek’s comments on these and other posts to be very informative and well sourced.”
I have found the opposite. His sources are weak, to be kind.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Many times he has sent me searching through my books or the internet to verify his posting and I have so far found them to be accurate.”
We must be talking about different BroJoeK’s. I have yet to see any solid references from him. Mostly he follows the lead of the orthodoxy-of-the-day.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Unlike other posters on this site that like to selectively site sources (looking at you jeffersondem).”
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “As far as his world view and religious beliefs go I can’t really comment on those. There are many Christians I know that believe the earth is billions of years old and that evolution did happen.”
So did I, until well into my 60’s (I have been a Christian since my 20’s). But once I was exposed to contrary evidence against evolution (and billions-of-years,) I accepted it. The same with American History and Lincoln. I didn’t have a clue that Lincoln was a blood-thirsty, central-planning tyrant until this century.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “As far as the founding fathers, denying they were influenced by the enlightenment is denying historic facts. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were confirmed Deist.”
Painting them with the broad brush of the so-called “Enlightenment” does them disservice. There were some horrific doctrines that came out of the so-called “Enlightenment.” A more accurate representation would be, they were guided by their Christian heritage.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “And though only the most hardcore liberal would deny the influence of Christianity on our country it was not the only influence. Our country is the end result of three major cultural influences, Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and the enlightenment. All three helped create (IMHO) the greatest country that has ever existed on this planet, the United States of America. It has produced a country that now allows the most individual freedom and highest standard of living human beings have ever seen. It’s not perfect, but then nothing on this planet is, but I love it and would defend it with my life.”
Out nation is hanging on by a thread, and the chief culprits appear to be the doctrines of crony capitalism and central planning: both given to us by Lincoln (actually, the Hamiltonite Henry Clay, Lincoln’s hero.) My rule of thumb is, if the Marxists worship him, his doctrine cannot be good for mankind; and Marxists love the memory of Abraham Lincoln.
Regarding our standard of living, anyone can appear to be living high-on-the-hog if they have enough credit. Subtract 20 trillion from our standard of living and see if it looks the same.
Your patriotism is noted. I served my country in time of war, and I am honored to have had the privilege.
Mr. Kalamata
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.