Posted on 11/03/2004 8:24:39 AM PST by Always Right
My history books said the south lost the Civil War, but apparently that was just a battle. The south lost the battle of 1861-1865, but now are winning the war.
Excuse the map, I could not find one that had all the states colored in.
Sebesta is no Lerone Bennett, I admit. But without knowing Blackerby or his source I won't say that he is any worse than Sebesta or any better.
Is that what I said? Well, no.
Once again, you're just trying to be irritating. It's working.
Well pardon me all to hell. You complain about what you see as extremism in one direction and find nothing wrong with being a card-carrying member of the other extreme. I find that a bit irritating myself.
One of the problems with apocrypha is that there isn't a decisive reference. If there was, then it wouldn't be apocrypha.
The primary source for the Grant held slaves part is the autobiography attributed to Mrs. Grant, but which was for the most part written by others and not published until over 70 years after she died. There are references to owning slaves far after she legally could. In fact there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Mrs. Grant's slaves were still around after the first part of 1863.
As for the Grant quote, I've seen it referenced time and again, and I believe Grant did say something along those lines although the exact context has been lost. Another quote frequently attributed to Grant, that he held slaves until December 1865 because "...good help is hard to find" is a complete fabrication.
[NS] Let's cut to the real chase. Hasn't our mutual loathing reached the point yet where there is no point of debating any longer?
Like I said in response to the above: maybe, just maybe, you take these threads a little too seriously.
"White Haven was built in 1808 by Captain John Long, who had won his title during the Revolution. Later the house and three hundred acres of the original farm were sold to Frederick Dent, who, at one period, had ninety slaves in the slave quarters still to be seen at the rear of the house.
Through Mrs. Grant the entire property came into the possession of General Grant. At the time of the failure of Grant & Ward, the farm was pledged to William H. Vanderbilt, who sold it to Captain Fuller H. Conn of St. Louis. Captain Conn disposed of it in a number of parcels. One of these, containing fifteen acres and the old homestead, was purchased by Albert Wenzlick, who makes his summer home in the house where Ulysses S. Grant met Julia Dent."
Who's slave cabins did he destroy?
We're losing the Mexican-American War, though-- being fought right under our noses.
LOL, true. This is the longest thread I have ever started and this is my first reply to it. I meant it as an ironic observation, but it apparently struck a chord.
Did the dems steal New Mexico again?
I can't say I know much about the first either, however the law of probability dictates that he is not likely to be worse than your source of choice since Sebesta falls somewhere on the left wing wacko tail of the population distribution. I'd estimate him at somewhere to the left of Chomsky and Mary Frances Berry, but just to the right of the absolute far left nut fringe, aka Cynthia McKinney.
None of his public acts, either before or after he became President, exhibits any special tenderness for the African race, or any extraordinary commiseration of their lot. On the contrary, he invariably, in words and deeds, postponed the interests of the blacks to the interests of the whites, and expressly subordinated the one to the other. When he was compelled, by what he deemed an overruling necessity, founded on both military and political considerations, to declare the freedom of the public enemy's slaves, he did so with avowed reluctance, and took pains to have it understood that his resolution was in no wise affected by sentiment. He never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of electors, in his own State or in the States of the South. He claimed that those who were incidentally liberated by the Federal arms were poor-spirited, lazy, and slothful; that they could be made soldiers only by force, and willing laborers not at all; that they seemed to have no interest in the cause of their own race, but were as docile in the service of the Rebellion as the mules that ploughed the fields or drew the baggage-trains; and, as a people, were useful only to those who were at the same time their masters and the foes of those who sought their good. With such views honestly formed, it is no wonder that he longed to see them transported to Hayti, Central America, Africa, or anywhere, so that they might in no event, and in no way, participate in the government of his country. Accordingly, he was, from the beginning, as earnest a colonizationist as Mr. Clay, and, even during his Presidency, jealously and persistently devised schemes for the deportation of the negroes, which the latter deemed cruel and atrocious in the extreme. He believed, with his rival, that this was purely a "white man's government;" but he would have been perfectly willing to share its blessings with the black man, had he not been very certain that the blessings would disappear when divided with such a partner. He was no Abolitionist in the popular sense; did not want to break over the safeguards of the Constitution to interfere with slavery where it had a lawful existence; but, wherever his power rightfully extended, he was anxious that the negro should be protected, just as women and children and unnaturalized men are protected, in life, limb, property, reputation, and every thing that nature or law makes sacred. But this was all: he had no notion of extending to the negro the privilege of governing him and other white men, by making him an elector. That was a political trust, an office to be exercised only by the superior race.It was therefore as a white man, and in the interests of white men, that he threw himself into the struggle to keep the blacks out of the Territories. He did not want them there either as slaves or freemen; but he wanted them less as slaves than as freemen.
Ward H. Lamon, The Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1872, Reprint 1999, University of Nebraska Press, pp. 344-6
I'm not aware that anyone questioned the fact that Grant owned William Jones and emancipated him prior to moving to Illinois. I certainly didn't.
[dw #495] I'm not aware that anyone questioned the fact that Grant owned William Jones and emancipated him prior to moving to Illinois. I certainly didn't.
I was only responding to the claimed "primary source" for Grant holding slaves. The provided legal document, in Grant's own hand, showed that he did own a slave and would seem to be the primary document to show that Grant once held a slave.
Further Grant wrote of "my negro man William, sometimes called William Jones ... being the same slave purchased by me of Frederick Dent...." Many sources relate that Jones was an unwanted gift from Grant's father-in-law, but this document indicates that Grant bought William Jones from his father-in-law.
This started as a discussion of the claim that has been made that Grant owned slaves up until the 13th Amendment took affect. His pre-war ownership of a slave isn't in dispute, just the idea that either he or his wife owned one or more as late as December 1865.
Indeed they do. Unfortunately for your cause that was never the issue. The issue was the irrefutable fact that you altered the title of a FEDERAL unit, the 1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry, to make it sound as if they were a state militia called the "1st Colorado Volunteer Militia" which in reality did not exist. You lied and you got caught, capitan, just like you always get caught.
I certainly did not lie about anything, because the orders of battle are well known. You, however, prefer to parse terms - which is why your reputation is so low.
But militias, even when called up, are still organized and known as state units. Federal volunteers are not.
When national guardsmen go over to Iraq today they are still national guardsmen - the modern equivalent of the state militia. They do not become reservists. They do not become full timers. They remain national guardsmen. Their unit of the national guard may have been called into the federal service, but that does not make it something other than the national guard.
My postion is quite simple to follow, except possibly for a simpleton like yourself.
Your position is either that of a simpleton or one of a filthy liar (and given your track record I'm inclined to believe the latter though, as always, I'll leave the choice for you to make).
The simple irrefutable fact is that the referenced Colorado unit was called the "1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry" - a federal unit. It was NOT called the "1st Colorado Volunteer Militia" - the name you incorrectly or dishonestly applied to it. It was not called the "Colorado Militia" in any form. And it was not a "1st Colorado Volunteer Militia" that became something other than the Colorado Militia when it entered into federal service. To call it the "1st Colorado Volunteer Militia" as you did is something akin to misidentifying the United States Air Force Reserves based at Lackland outside of San Antonio as the "Texas Air National Guard." And to persist in that error after being taken to task over it indicates your fundamental dishonesty.
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.