Posted on 11/26/2005 9:36:29 PM PST by Mier
While all the anti war cowards were screaming for Bush to cut and run and our willing accomplice main stream media acting like kids in a candy store. I heard someone on talk radio say that during the civil war Lincoln had his media detracters thrown in the bottom of a war ship until the war was over. But I can't find any facts on-line to back it up. Does any one know where I might go to find information on this? I mentioned this to a (left wing co-worker) and he thinks I made it up. I sure would like to prove him wrong! Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.
Nice try, but I was specifically talking about neoconfederates. They are the people who are forever maligning "Yankees" to whitewash the Confederacy. And they are among the most vindictive and bigoted people in the country. Pretty stupid too, at least when it comes to their own history. Most Southerners don't fall in that category, and there's nothing wrong with them.
And Quantrill summarily executed unarmed men and boys at Lawrence. And you can't see a difference between the two?
So if in your eyes it's OK to kill innocent, unarmed men and boys on the assumption that they would shoot if given a chance then it must have been OK in your eyes for the Unionists to do the same, right?
That doesn't stop you from calling Lincoln a war criminal and every other name in the book.
So you really don't know what he actually said and did? Yet you're convinced his arrest was unjustified.
You're memory is as selective as always. Charles A.L. Lamar from Charleston was trying to run slaves into the south as late as 1858. His ship, the Wanderer, was seized and he was arrested.
Ahh, another 'court historian'. So I take it you've read through the Slave Narratives? Not the select few picked through by HBO but all of them?
Heading south, Breckenridge joined the Confederate Army, rising to the rank of Major General (and he did quite well) before accepting a posting as Secretary of War just a few months before Richmond fell.
This is just an abbreviated version of the events, there are a lot more details, but the basic gist is the same.
Nobody is denying that New England shippers were major participants in the slave trade. Only your asinine claim that no southerners were involved.
Tit for tat. I take note you see the difference, Unionists are always good, Southerners always bad.
That would be your position, not mine. Reversed, of course.
Ask your ilk in New England about slaves, they started the filthy trade.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=slave+trade+of+new+england
It was more than a "nice try," it hit your sorry persona dead on the mark.
Of course, you would like to believe such, people who live in glass houses et all. But your actions speak volumes otherwise.
This has denigrated into the cellar, you want to end the pissing contest now, or carry it to the next level? Your call.
Common sense. My home town of Pittsburgh had six newspapers in 1860. New York City must have had 20 papers catering to every party and ethnic group. It also had thousands of young boys who either delivered or sold on the street 99% of the newspapers. The US Mail service in 1860 was not much different than today -- first class delivery between say New York and Washington was at best 3 days -- i.e no longer "news". How much are you willing to pay for a 3 day old paper when even in 1860, there were "wire" (telegraph) servies that reported the exact same national stories accros the nation?
Surely, there were some out-of-town subscribers willing to pay for mail delivery who were living in another area and interested keeping in touch with home --- the death notices, marriage licenses and local political, business and social happenings that would not show in the papers where they were residing, just as relocated people today access on the Internet to their home-town paper to keep in touch. But if you think that any paper in the country relied on the US Mail service for the "majority" of their subscribers, and revenues, I'd say you are stuck on stupid!
To claim that "most" of any newspaper's circulation was dependent on a slow and unreliable US Postal service either in 1860 or in 2005 is simply absurd --- but then again Pea, so is most of your mythology. But in your favor, you are not nearly as absurd as Stand Watie. ;~))
The evidence I've seen suggests it was not merited. Based on what's in the Official Records, there doesn't seem to be enough to justify his arrest.
Plus, the Feds let him go about a month after his arrest based on his alligiance oath and promise not to do anything against the Northern government. If they had proof he had done any plotting against the Union, I doubt if they would have let him go. In other words, they didn't have squat against him.
I invite you to make your case about whether his arrest was justified if you have one. If you don't, quit wasting bandwidth.
And she met Lincoln. Here is an account of that meeting from Newsday.com: Link
Bryant and Truth both had occasion to meet Lincoln, Bryant in 1862 and Truth two years later. Bryant and Lincoln enjoyed a good relationship. After Lincoln's assassination, Bryant declined an offer from Lincoln's friends to write a biography of the president. Truth, despite the glowing recollections in her narrative, received a far different reception.
She and a fellow abolitionist, who was white, were kept waiting for more than three hours as Lincoln joked with male visitors. When Truth went before Lincoln, he became tense and sour. He called Truth "Aunty, . . . as he would his washerwoman," the abolitionist, Lucy Coleman, would recall. She rushed Truth from the room.
You talk like that about your fellow countrymen and it's only right that someone rebukes you for it.
Your cult is the stupidest of the stupid and you disgrace your fine region. If I meet a German who goes on and on about how horrible France is and blames all his country's faults on France, or a Frenchmen who can't stop talking about how horrible Britain or America is, I've met someone who doesn't know his own people's history, but only has a stupid, self-pitying, self-justifying tale of victimization to justify abuse.
If I come across a Southerner who goes on and on about how horrible the Yankee is, I know I haven't met someone who's thought very long or very deeply about Southern or American history. I'd say the same thing if I came across a Northerner who couldn't stop running down the South.
But people like that are rarer than you think. Rather it's neoconfederates who rant about how Northerners hate Southerners as a preface to attacking the North. On the whole, the rest of the country -- and the rest of the South -- isn't as obsessive as you clowns.
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.