Posted on 10/15/2005 8:38:50 AM PDT by teldon30
BTW, I included Sandra Day O'Connor as one of the four Southerners in the last 50 years because she was born in El Paso, Texas. However, she lived in Arizona a long time before her SCOTUS nomination.
One outta two ain't bad.....LOL.
How can you preach about the evils of slavery by using the bible? I am curious....not a baited question at all.
Neither side was particularly creative in battlefield tactics. The North won the war because it employed a successful grand strategy, secondarily because of material. One cannot ignore the moral question raised about slavery, either.
I'm leaving for Dixie next weekend.
Dixie, Utah (aka Saint George)
By the winter of 1862 the casualties suffered by the North and the strings of defeats in the Eastern Theater was starting to undermind the civilian moral of the North. The US never experienced such a war where soldiers were butchered by out of date tactics employed against the firepower of the rifled infantry. Ironicly while the North did badly in the East, the critical battles to victory was at sea and in the West. If the South did not throw their army away in the Battle for Atlanta and Lee forced the North to attack at Gettysburg by putting his army between the Army of the Potomac and Washington DC as suggested by Longstreet, the war would have lasted longer and there would have been a good chance that the Northern support for the war would have given up, and today the US would be two distinct nations.
Paul Johnson, in A History of the American People", affirms the fact that slavery was always a contentious issue from the time of the original colonies. He also asserts that the south would have won the War of NOrthern Aggression had the gin and harvester been deveoped just a decade or two earlier, thus enabling the South to develope its economy to a greater extent. With mechanization, the proslavery proponents would have not held tightly to he notion of 'chatel' slavery as it was the singular blot on American idealism. Had the South had 20 years to developes its infrastructure and economy, there is little doubt that the south would have prevailed, according to Paul Johnson.
"Hallucinating discrimination, and maligning the motives of others, is not a pretty thing."
And you are comparing me to Farrakhan, just about the most openly antisemitic dude in the USA today. And both of these items are in one post with no hint of irony on your part.
My, my ... this Southern White Protestant SCOTUS thing has really really touched a nerve I see.
Thanks for the clarification ... and the eye opener too... for El Paso is notoriously a democrat stronghold.
The first known example of the southron myth machine at work.
All good and accurate reasons why the south lost the war of Yankee Aggression.
Civil War: War between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation. {emphasis mine}
To call the conflict a civil war is to presuppose the outcome. The right of the southern States to secede and form the Confederacy was the central question being contended between the parties. Calling the War Between the States a "civil war" is done to hide the true causes of the war. Its just one of many ways modern elites poke southerners in the eye.
But I will admit that it is wisely, if unfortunately, written that the victors write the history.
Isn't her hearing scheduled to begin on Novemeber 7, 2005?
The democrats would like nothing more than to delay it in the hope that they win a senate majority. IF that happens, say hello to Alberto Gonzales because he'd be the best we could do.
Thanks for all of your information. An eye opener and like you said "sheesh, this was so obvious all along."
Care to quote Lincoln? And can you tell me just which 'states rights' were being violated?
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
emphasis mine.
So? Emphasis or not, Lincolns words above do not support your theory that "Slavery was not the cause of the war." It merely says that, to Lincoln, preserving the union was paramount. He does not address the cause.
And I see you are unable to answer my other question.
You must be the product of a government school.
Thank you for that link and for your brilliant posts. I will pour over it while I eat my lunch.
If the south had freed their slaves before the war then there wouldn't have been a rebellion to begin with.
You're welcome. :-)
"Karl Marx was an enthusiastic supporter of Lincoln, he even had spies serving in the Northern Army."
Please. Source?
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.