Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
LOL...not a very difficult prediction to make, eh?
No. And your last post re: Stonewall Jackson has already begun the cut and paste brigade's search for bad things written or said about the man.
There, fixed it.
Another thing that bothers me is that every slave came in on Northern ships. They made their profits off slavery, but seemed to rather selfishly not understand the cost to the South that abolition would have meant. Surely the shipping concerns that made so much on the slave trade should have contributed to relieve that burden.
Forebears of mine volunteered to wear the blue, and some never returned, others received gifts of Southern lead and/or Southern hospitality. Graves of my family lie in a churchyard with a historical marker that highlights the strong abolitionist fervor of the church. If there are ever reparations, I sure hope I get my chunk for all my non-slaveholding, non-slave importing, sacrificing ancestors did! :-)
I often ponder whether they would have wanted the Lincoln bureaucratic behemoth, though, and I somehow doubt it.
I think that's one of the lost cause myths.
And of course, blacks loved Stonewall because he ran a "colored Sunday school," where he taught "Negroes" how to read and how to achieve salvation.
Jackson didn't run the school, it was sponsored by the Presbyterian Church he was a member of. Black Sunday schools were common throughout the south, Jackson wasn't unique in teaching in one. The schools taught scripture, not reading, and were for both free blacks and slaves. Some of the slaves attending belonged to Jackson himself.
He wasn't treasonous at all. He was very loyal to Virginia, his home State that had been united with others. Recall that when Virginia (and New York) ratified the Constitution, they did so with the explicit mention that it was only with the understanding that secession would be allowed. Lincoln changed the rules, not Lee.
Besides, there was nary a word when New England states had considered secession a few decades previously. Why were those gatherings not broken up as "seditious" or something?
So, as long as a person remains loyal to their home state, they can commit whatever treason they want against the United States? Interesting.
Besides, there was nary a word when New England states had considered secession a few decades previously. Why were those gatherings not broken up as "seditious" or something?
Because, AFAIK, they did not organize an army and attempt to secede from the Union.
Just a minor detail that, I reckon.
Respect, not intimidation. No one intimidated Grant. This does not mean Grant did not take into account his opponents abilities.
Lee was a courteous man. Shame you have not learned anything from your hero.
He taught a class, and yes it was sponsored by the church. (But if you know so much about this, surely you recall that Jackson sent funds himself from the field back to Lexington for the school.)
So what if black sunday schools were common throughout the South? Why would that diminish the fact that it was a very different situation from what is often portrayed in Northern grade schools today? It only illustrates my point more.
And yes, it was for both free and slaves...again, even slaves were taught (which conflicts with what was taught to me in grade school). And the sources I have seen have pretty clearly indicated that reading WAS taught...else no mention would be made of him violating laws against teaching blacks to read! Where are you getting your claim?
Truth.
My comment was to the well recognized fact that Lincoln trashed the Constitution.
Will you accord the same honor to President Grant, General Grant?
Uh, he resigned his commission, and Virginia seceded...there was no way he could have committed treason against the United States when they weren't a part of it.
You need to look at the historical perspective and see that before the South was invaded and subdued, there were states that were united...thus, united states. The individuality of the states was quite clear, as Robert E. Lee felt loyalty to Virginia, not to some "Confederacy" when he resigned his US commission. Recall that the confederacy formed after states had seceded.
New England states considered secession and raising an army. Again, why was the discussion of that, and the voting on it, not seditious?
How?
I understand. Mine was to the well recognized fact that he saved the United States of America.
Oh he was pretty rough on it Non-S. But he needed to be, FDR was as well. I have no doubts that W would be if he needed to.
Only if you accept the southern acts of unilateral secession to be legal.
New England states considered secession and raising an army. Again, why was the discussion of that, and the voting on it, not seditious?
The Sedition Acts had been ruled unconstitutional some time before so merely talking about rebellion wasn't illegal. Too, the Hartford Convention never seriously debated secession. Those attending advocating the breakup of the Union were voted down early. If you read the declaration issued by the convention you would find that nowhere does it threaten secession.
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.