:)
Posted on 03/17/2005 8:14:05 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
The curse of Ham, was a curse on Canaan not Ham (who had three other sons)
God foresaw what that line of people would do to resist Israel, hence the prophecy placed on them.
Not unlike that of Jacob and Esau (referring to two nations), Gen.25 cf Rom.9
Stephens notes as much in his speech.
It, however, was not the deciding issue that those like Delorenzo want to make it to be.
Slavery was that crucial issue that led to the final rupture between the South and North.
But....but....the von Mises Institute are a bunch of know-nothing pifflers, didn't our friends tell us that themselves?
I think Mr. LS better check in with Non-Sequitur and capitan_refugio to get the true Kool-Aid Drinker perspective on the von Mises Institute and their hapless "scholarship" that keeps coming up with economic and practical motives for the North to jump and then STOMP into supinity.
Combined with stumbles over editorials like this one, one could form an entirely wrong conclusion, couldn't one?
The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go."----Union Democrat, Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861
Yeah, Mr. LS needs to check his sources for reliability a little more closely, when he is busy trying to stuff everything but slavery down the Memory Hole.
That isn't what the newspapers in New Hampshire and New York said. That isn't what Lincoln said!
"The crucial issue that led to the final rupture between the South and North" was the fact that everything went on the line, as the North tried to take the South to the cleaners and embraced a take-no-prisoners attitude in doing so.
More important, Noah could not CURSE what God had already BLESSED. (Who wins that rouhd?)
That's not what your Northern editorialists said, when it got down to the nut-cutting. And that isn't what the British editorialists believed, either, when they examined the question.
Abolition vs Union The Times of London
The Emancipation Proclamation
15 January 1863It would seem that in the interval which has elapsed between the battle of Fredericksburg and the commencement of the new year the advocates of more conciliatory and more violent counsels have fairly fought their battle out, and that victory has declared in favour of the latter. Mr. LINCOLN has finally adhered to the policy from which he showed at one moment some inclination to draw back. He has kept his promise to the very letter; be has declared the negroes in the States now at open war with the North free, except within certain districts occupied by the Federal forces, and has pledged the Government of the United States to recognize and support the freedom so granted by their naval and military force. From this Proclamation Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Maryland are exempt; so that it would seem to be the policy of the PRESIDENT to interpose an isthmus of slavery between the two masses of free States which are to extend to the North and South of it.
Pronounced under other circumstances, by another person, and at another time, such a Proclamation might well excite once more the enthusiasm which penetrated the whole mind of England in the days Of WILBERFORCE and CLARKSON. We should most unfeignedly rejoice were the words to which the PRESIDENT has given utterance capable of carrying with them their own fulfilment. To slavery we have ever entertained the most rooted aversion. Not all the valour, not all the success of the South, has ever blinded us to this black spot on their fair escocheon. But even tainted as they are with this foul stain they have commanded our admiration and our sympathy from the gallantry with which they have maintained their cause, and from the obvious truth that the struggle was for separation on the one part and compulsory retention on the other, the emancipation or continued slavery of the negro being only used as means to forward the ends of the North. While it was supposed that the South could be brought back by giving every security for the continuance of slavery, the North never dreamt of emancipation. When it was found that no such conciliation was possible, the North, as a weapon of war, and not as a concession to principle, has finally decided on emancipation. That this measure is no homage to principle or conviction, but merely a means of raising up a domestic enemy against the Southerners in the midst of the Southern States, is abundantly proved from the fact that slavery, so odious in Alabama, is tolerated in Kentucky. Its abolition is a punishment to rebels; its retention is a reward to patriots; it is not the accursed thing to be rooted out at all hazards. Its abolition is the punishment of rebellion; its retention is the reward of adherence to the Union.
-- Quoted in Abraham Lincoln, A Press Portrait, auth. Mitgang.
This editorial was previously posted in another thread, in 2004, and is brought to your attention in case you hadn't had a chance to examine its judicious weighing of the "all about slavery" argument, as advanced at the time by Abraham Lincoln.
For what it's worth, I disagree somewhat with The Times and give Lincoln full credit for being an abolitionist from 1855 forward. The implication, however, is that he misled the public for over eight years until he had a chance to reveal his real agenda, and that he took the nation to war, precisely to achieve what he could not have done within the bounds of the Constitution had the South not seceded; and that therefore the Civil War was Lincoln's way of inviting the Southern men to take it out in the alley, where Lincoln could prevail without the nagging constraints of rule of law, due process, and constitutionalism.
I would also mention Lincoln's oath of office in this connection, but since Lincoln wasn't religious, perhaps he felt himself at liberty to do as he thought best, like so many later 20th-century heads of state.
Reagan and Lincoln - two of the greatest presidents.
The interesting history protrayed has to do with the Emancipation Proclamation. The two members of the Cabinet on Lincoln's right (viewer's left) supported Lincoln's initial draft. The five cabinet members to Lincoln's left did not initially support the Emancipation Proclamation. All except Bates, the Atty. Gen. (far right of portrait) more or less came around.
His replacement for Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, was not only a staunch Democrat, but a supporter of the secessionist candidate, i.e., Breckrinridge, in the pivotal 1860 presidential election, illustrates this fact more vividly than any other.
Combine this with Lincoln's choice of a border state Whig/Republican, i.e., Bates, for Attorney General, and his choice of a moderate antislavery senator and chief rival for the Rep. nomination, William Seward, for Sec'y of State, and it's hard to believe that anyone would accuse President Lincoln of being some sort of dogmatic, unyielding ideologue.
And, I might add, he put former democrat Senator from Tennesee, Andrew Johnson, on the ticket in 1864. I recall, too, that he had been friends with former southern Whig Alexander Stephens, when they served in Congress together. Had the deep south not "flown the coop" prior to Lincoln's inauguration, I would not have been surprised if he had included southerners, such as Stephens, in his cabinet.
Not at all, mac. I simply know who I'm dealing with...
"The perjury count against Clinton was for lying about adultery in a deposition during a civil lawsuit that stemmed from an incident that occurred before he was elected President. This misconduct did not flow from his holding the office of President of the United States, in fact one could argue that the civil suit for sexual harassment was brought against him only because he was POTUS." - mac_truck, 7/14/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1631#1631
"It should become quite clear to someone who is even mildly objective, that were some serious constitutional questions about whether Clinton's crimes should be considered 'high' or 'petit'. I would further argue that recent events involving the plaintiff in that case make the 'petitness' of the misconduct even more apparent." - mac_truck, 7/14/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1631#1631
"No honest person would assert that opposing the Clinton impeachment on constitutional grounds was a left-wing or communist position." - mac_truck, 7/10/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1497#1457
"The World Socialist Website (WSWS) is a legitimate political organization..."- mac_truck, 7/10/03 referring to the World Socialist Web Site, a propaganda page run by a communist political party that advocates the Lenin-style revolutionary overthrow of the western world
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1497#1457
"You seem to have difficulty distinguishing the difference between a legitimate political organization like WSWS [World Socialist Web Site], which you disagree with, and other quasi-terrorist or out-right terrorist groups." - mac_truck, 7/9/03 referring to a communist political party that that advocates the Lenin-style revolutionary overthrow of the western world
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1497#1406
" I didn’t mention McPherson being an advisor to Bill Bradley because he wasn’t an advisor to Bill Bradley." - mac_truck, 7/9/03 [NOTE: McPherson was a member of a select group of academic advisors to Bill Bradley's campaigns]
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1497#1406
"BTW didn’t Bradley advocate the ‘flat tax’ back in the 1980s? Now there’s a far left-wing position for you!"- mac_truck, 7/9/03, denying former liberal Democrat Senator and Pres. candidate Bill Bradley's leftist credentials
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927614/posts?page=1497#1406
In fact, they were both more closely tied to the cause of repudiating what a significant portion of the Whig Party saw as President Jackson's abuse of office, then any other two sitting members of Congress, at the time.
The (ultimately abortive) Hampton Roads summit-where they saw each for the first time in years-is a wonderful anecdote, simply from the perspective of examining this complex relationship between two brilliant statesmen.
Supposedly, he did grant one of the requests made by his old friend-and now, adversary-at that conference, which was to grant clemency to his son, who was a P.O.W. in Union captivity.
Abraham Lincoln served in Congress for one term in 1846-47. Andrew Jackson left the White House in 1837. There were four different presidents between the time Jackson left office and Lincoln was elected: Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, and Polk.
I don't believe I have ever commented about the "von Mises Institute." Professor LS has a much better handle on the issues of the late-antebellum south than any of you neo-rebels. To any right-minded individual, the economic issues contributing to the ACW were secondary (at best) to the political and social ramifications of the issues related to slavery.
Another case of proofreading gone awry, by yours truly.
Polk=Young Hickory
Jackson=Old Hickory
Hey, you expect my brain to function properly on two hours sleep?
:&)
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
As a young man before he professed law, Stanton studied in the same Ohio seminary as the Beechers and knew them both, as well as other leading lights of the Abolitionist movement. He was personally a strong Abolitionist all his life, exceeded in his enthusiasm probably only by Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln himself.
Others disagree, but I think IMHO that Lincoln was a strong abolitionist, shown by his letters quoted by David Donald in Lincoln (1999), howbeit that he found it useful not to associate himself with the extreme Abolitionist agitation. He did send money to the Kansas abolitionists, however, with the stipulation that it not be used for weapons or violence.
My mistake, then. Someone on your side of the aisle was using the Von Mises Institute roundly, and I had the impression it was you.
Is that why he is always bashing conservatives? He's a neo-liberal pretending to be a neocon?
What does his recent posting history look like?
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.