Abe Lincoln and the media

[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.

[Gianni]

Read Freedom Under Lincoln by Sprague.

[Non-Sequitur]

This has denigrated into the cellar, you want to end the pissing contest now, or carry it to the next level? Your call.

End it.

[Gianni]

Pea you are as full of crap as the proverbial Thanksgiving turkey.

Hopefully, you had a happy Thanksgiving full of crap-free turkey.

[LS]

Funny, I thought that the Greeks, and before them, Persians and others started the "filthy" trade.

Typical of a neo-confederate, though: Blame someone else for the institution that you fought a war to support, and which those New England boys died to eliminate. Always someone else's fault. Calhoun constantly blamed the North for his own region's inability to manufacture, or to invent. (Southern patents were a tiny percentage of the North's---another fine legacy of slavery).

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Done

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Only one White out of seventy owned slaves, methinks the other 69 fought the northern aggressor invasion for other reasons.

You of course are right, there was no Yankee greed? S/ While you deny, here is Sherman's own words. Kill them, confiscate their lands & property, colonize the south with northerners, drive the southerners out and deport them from America.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ga/topic/military/CivilWar/shermanscheme.htm

"GENERAL SHERMAN'S COLONIZATION SCHEME

Confederate Veteran, Vol. IV, No. 11, Nashville, Tenn., November, 1896.

---

GENERAL SHERMAN'S COLONIZATION SCHEME

Washington Evening Star

His Comment on Men and Measures in August, 1862.

Copied from the "Washington Evening Star":

United States Commissioner A. J. Williams, of Cleveland, Ohio, a member of the Loyal Legion, recently gave out for publication the following letter written by Gen. Sherman to his brother, Senator John Sherman, in 1862.

MEMPHIS, TENN., Aug. 13, 1862.

My dear brother: I have not written to you for so long that I suppose you think I have dropped the correspondence. For six weeks I was marching along the road from Corinth to Memphis, mending roads, building bridges, and all sorts of work. At last I got here and found the city contributing gold' arms, powder, salt and everything the enemy wanted. It was a smart trick on their part thus to give up Memphis that the desire of gain to our Northern merchants should supply them with the things needed in war.

I stopped this at once and declared gold, silver, treasury notes and salt as much contraband of war, as powder. I have one man under sentence of death for smuggling arms across the lines, and hope Mr. Lincoln will approve it. But the mercenary spirit of our people is too much and my orders are reversed and I am ordered to encourage the trade in cotton, and all orders prohibiting gold, silver and notes to be paid for it are annulled by orders from Washington. Grant promptly ratified my order, and all military men here saw at once that gold spent for cotton went to the purchase of arms and munitions of war. But what are the lives of our soldiers to the profits of the merchants?

After a whole year of bungling, the country has at last discovered that we want more men. All knew it last fall as well as now; but it was not popular. Now 1,300,000 men are required when 700,000 was deemed absurd before. It will take time to work up these raw recruits and they will reach us in October, when we should be in Jackson, Meridian and Vicksburg. Still, I must not growl. I have purposely put back, and have no right to criticize, save that I am glad the papers have at last found out we are at war and have a formidable enemy to combat.

Of course I approve the confiscation act, and would be willing to revolutionize the government so as to amend that article of the Constitution which forbids the forfeiture of land to the heirs. My full belief is, we must colonize the country de novo, beginning with Kentucky and Tennessee, and should remove 4,000,000 of our people at once south of the Ohio River, taking the farms and plantations of the Rebels. I deplore the war as much as ever, but if the thing has to be done, let the means be adequate.

Don't expect to overrun such a country or subdue such a people in one, two or five years. It is the task of half a century. Although our army is thus far South it cannot stir from our garrisons. Our men are killed and captured within sight of our lines.

I have two divisions here—mine and Hurlbut's— about 13,000 men; I am building a strong fort, and think this is to be one of the depots and bases of operations for future movements.

The loss of Halleck is almost fatal; we have no one to replace him. Instead of having one head we have live or six, all independent of each other.

I expect our enemy will mass their troops and fall upon our detachments before new reinforcements come. I cannot learn that there are any large bodies of men near us here.

There are detachments at Holly Springs and Senatobia, the present terminal of the railroads from the South, and all the people of the country are armed as guerrillas. Curtis is at Helena, eighty miles south, and Grant at Corinth. Bragg's Army from Tripoli has moved to Chattanooga and proposes to march on to Nashville, Lexington and Cincinnati. They will have about 75,000 men. Buell is near Huntsville with about 30,000, and I suppose detachments of the new levies can be put in Kentucky from Ohio and Indiana in time.

The weather is very hot and Bragg can't move his forces very fast; but I fear he will give trouble. My own opinion is we ought not to venture too much into the interior until the river is safely in our possession, when we could land at any point and strike inland. To attempt to hold all the South would demand an army too large even to think of.

We must colonize and settle as we go South, for in Missouri there is as much strife as ever.

Enemies must be killed or transported to some other country.

Your affectionate brother,

W. T. SHERMAN"

[stand watie]

what a LOT of UTTER, arrogantly SIMPLISTIC BILGE & self-righteous NONSENSE.

rotfl AT you!

go peddle your SELF-serving,LEFTIST, REVISIONIST propaganda on DU. they LIKE lies & DAMNyankee apologism there.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

actually, it ALL counts.

nonetheless, lincoln was a TYRANT, a STONE racist & a WAR CRIMINAL.

with all that academic preparation, you should have picked up at least a BIT of the TRUTH about lincoln & his pack of thugs. PITY that you did NOT.

free dixie,sw

[LS]

Calling a dog a cat does not make it one. You may rant and rave---again, I note that the neo-confederates never seem to find evil in slavery, or in the institutionalization of it in the South---but it doesn't change the fact that you cannot defend the South without stooping to defend an immoral institution.

[stand watie]

actually, the slavers cared for NOTHING but PROFIT.

you give them too much credit for "brains". they deserve NONE, as they in general:

1. did NOT see that the coming of the Industrial Revolution to agriculture was about to KILL slavery as a PROFIT-making system,

2. didn't even figure out until the late WBTS period that they were about to lose their "investment in human flesh" AND

3. MOST of the slavers (both North & South) were DUMB enough to believe that lincoln & his cohorts would "be true to their word" & would,as promised by many members of the "union high command", would protect slavery PERMANENTLY! even lincoln said that he would support a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery PERMANENTLY!(lincoln's "word of honor" was about as reliable as wee willie klintoon's!)

finally, even a cursory reading of the FIRST PERSON accounts of former SLAVES, published in the "Slave Commentaries" of the 1930s WPA project, disclose that you are 100% WRONG about the treatment of probably over 95% of slaves.

your analogy to "children" is NOT well-taken, as the abusive parents do NOT have a direct profit motive in being decent to their children. sorry, but you are again WRONG, because abusive parents are only "garbage in human form", are psycotic and/or just criminals (too bad that we stopped "horsewhipping" child abusers!).

go do some more reading from other than REVISIONISTS & we'll talk.

free dixie,sw

[sauropod]

mark

[LS]

Still shouting and name calling. over and out.

[stand watie]

another fact-FREE,self-serving & pointless post!

IF what you said were TRUE, rather than FALSE, we southerners would not have had over 100,000-150,000 Black volunteers to fight for dixie freedom. do you REALLY think that those brave volunteers were TOO DUMB to know what they were fighting FOR??? (see BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY by the late H R Blackerby,PhD of Tuskegee University for more data)

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the difference is that the men on the "kill lists" at Lawrence were anything BUT innocent.

EACH of them had committed robbery,arson,kidnapping, rape,theft of livestock and/or murder of UNarmed civilians in IT, KS & MO.(the KS "volunteer cavalry",redlegs & jayhawkers were really good at attacking the defenseless on BOTH sides!)

ALL of the men on the "kill lists" had their crimes listed thereon.

otoh, Fremont's victims were generally gulity of NO crime at all, except having been armed at the time of their MURDER.

free dixie,sw

[Heyworth]

(see BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY by the late H R Blackerby,PhD of Tuskegee University for more data)

Another lie. First off, it's H C Blackerby. The H C stands for Hubert Curtis. Under the name Curtis Blackerby, he published "Great Civil War Stories" in 1961. I actually bought a copy of "Blacks in Blue and Gray" (cheap) and nowhere does it indicate that Blackerby was a PhD, much less from Tuskegee. It doesn't say that he was chair of the history department there, as you've often claimed. It doesn't even say that he was black. Instead what it says is that, after working as an army newspaper reporter during WW2, he was a "publisher of mass market publications."

Here's one of them:

[rustbucket]

You have an impressive set of accomplishments. Congratulations.

If you don't mind my asking, what were the political leanings (left, right, center) of the history faculty where you went to school and at the schools where you taught? That is, if you know or can hazard a guess.

I periodically see surveys that show that liberal arts departments are largely Democrat among those whose political affiliations are listed. Goes with the "liberal" in liberal arts, I guess. Here is a link to one such survey: Link.

It is not often I get to speak with a professional historian. What would you recommend in the way of history books on the Civil War?

[LS]

I've read his little book. Not to bad for a neo-confed, but, ultimately, not very reliable (as is most neo-confed crap).

First, don't ever, EVER, confuse "served" in the Confederate Army (or Navy) with serving as an actual soldier. As Blackerby tries to obscure, but eventually admits, the vast, vast, vast majority of blacks were never given a weapon. To say that 100,000---the highest number Blackeby accepts---"served" means that, at the utter, utter high end, perhaps 4,000-5,000 "fought." It's not clear that all of those were ever intended to fight by the CSA, or whether some, when, say, lines were overrun, picked up a weapon on the spur of the moment.

We do know that Confed propagandaizing of blacks was relentless, telling them that the Yankees were coming to kill them and rape them. Most, I'll admit, didn't believe this, because they had their own "information highway" and that's why they knew what was happening in the war.

He seeks to emphasize a handful of (unproven) reports of "black snipers" and a few (very few) instances of black volunteers who actually saw combat in a Confederate uniform---but has no reliable statistics on how many were truly "soldiers" (ie, were trained with weapons and expected to fight.

He ignores ALL evidence of Confederate military people and civilian leaders terrified of arming blacks.

He grudgingly admits that the overwhelming number of these "troops" were laborers, diggers, cooks, and musicians. I don't have the book---sent it back to the library---but as I recall he even had the actual occupations of many of these "troops" listed, and only one or two were even remotely likely to have a weapon.

But since you're so fond of numbers, how about this: in the North, 178,000 black troops enlisted---half of them from seceded states. Large numbers of them had weapons and training, and many regiments saw combat.

Equally important, however, is the fact that 100,000 WHITE southerners, including the 1st U.S. Alabama Infantry, the 1st U.S. Mississippi Mounted Rifles, the 4th U.S. Arkansas Infantry, the 2nd U.S. Florida Cavalry. It's worth noting that not only did more blacks in the North actually fight (again, most coming initially from seceded states) but about ten times more southern WHITES actually fought for the North than blacks held a weapon for the CSA.

Now here's the cherry on top of the whipped cream: neither the Southern whites nor the northern blacks fighting for the North received anything more than their monthly pay---but ALL (repeat, in case you Rebs have trouble with the truth, ALL) blacks serving in the CSA in ANY function were given promises of emancipation for their service. That's a no brainer if I'm a southern black, no matter how much I hate the Rebs, cause I can at least be free to leave later . . . if they planned to keep their word. (I certainly don't think they would, but that's just me.)

[LS]

When I attended ASU, in Political Science 1968-1972, the majority of the history faculty I encountered were "New Deal" Dems. I then got my degree in Poly Sci and played rock drums for three or four years. When I returned, and decided I wanted to be a professor in history, the department had moved somewhat left, including a couple of real radicals. (Poly Sci had its share of looney-tunes, too). There were three or four solid "country club" Republicans, and one ultra-right Jewish prof who was my mentor (can you tell?)

At UCSB, from 1981-1983 (I was only on campus one year), the majority of faculty were "New Deal" Dems, with 4-5 ultra radical leftists, including Wilbur Jacobs the Indian historian and Roderick Nash, the environmental historian. There were, at best, 2-3 "conservatives," but they kept quiet. Miracle of miracles, my advisor there, W. Elliot Brownlee, was a Wisconsin grad and a liberal, but to his great credit he let me "do my own thing" and graded me on what I knew, not how I towed the line. (Maybe that's why my dissertation was voted one of the three best in the country by the Economic History Association). At the school I now teach, the 16-member faculty has perhaps two registered Republicans (me included), a Kennedy Dem who usually votes Republican, and the rest ranging from moderate leftists to ultra libs.

On the Civil War, the literature is now so vast, you almost have to decide which battle you want to study. Shelby Foote's massive five volume series is great, but I'm partial to Allan Nevins' more sweeping "The Ordeal of the Union." It's "old-time history" at its best. People gush over "Battle Cry of Freedom," but I've never liked that. Then there is a libertarian view in "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeff Hummel---good, but deeply flawed.

Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants" is terrific from the southern viewpoint, and anything by T. Harry Williams or McFeeley on Lincoln and his generals is good for the nothern viewpoint. But you MUST see Richard Bensel's work, "Yankee Leviathan," which analyzes liberty in BOTH the north and south (excluding the slavery issue) and concludes that in some 150 separate points of comparison, a white northerner was much "freer" than a white southerner.

[LS]

One more thing: having shown you the overwhelming differences between blacks and whites who actually fought for the north vs. the handful of blacks who actually held a weapon for the south, it is as irrelevant on EITHER side as pointing out that Americans fought for Hitler (at the Battle of the Bulge); that Spain gave a whole division to Hitler; that Poles, French, Bulgarians, and even a few Brits fought for Hitler. It's a silly argument. Some people are so blind they can't even see their self-interest when it is stabbing them in the face.

[stand watie]

inasmuch as Professor Blackerby was BLACK & was THE expert of his time on Black Volunteers for the CSA's fight for freedom, i find your description of him as a "neo-confederate" UNPERSUASIVE at best & dismissive of his research for "partisan" reasons at worst.

DAMNyankees just CANNOT admit that Blacks served as VOLUNTEERS because it points out that the WBTS was about FREEDOM for dixie (rather than the war being a crusade against slavery & all that other hokem & bilgewater, which is regularly vomited up by the DYs!) & that those FREEMEN were fighting for the LIBERTY of their country!

may i also gently point out that you are DEAD WRONG about Blacks being offered their freedom for enlisting. that is a REVISIONIST LIE, propounded in the mid-1960s by those who would dismiss the BRAVE & HONORABLE service of NON-whites (like MY ancestors, for example!).

NO slaves volunteered for service with the CSA, as they were obviously not free to take the oath of enlistment. SOME slaves (less than 1,000, perhaps a few as 200), in point of fact, were FREED to take the oath.

btw, PLEASE come here to VA, come with me to the VFW & LOUDLY proclaim that mechanics,signalmen,enginemen, gunners,drivers,nurses,cooks,seebees,etc. are NOT real soldiers/sailors/marines! then DUCK! (i might just get you out alive & all in one piece.)

this "not real soldiers" NONSENSE is more smoke,mirrors & (in all too many cases) KNOWING LIES propounded by the LEFTISTS/south-HATERS & REVISIONISTS to DEGRADE & DENY that >100,000 Blacks VOLUNTEERED for duty in the CSA forces. furthermore, the LARGE number of Blacks who were lifelong members of the UCV & other CDA veterans organizations points out the DISHONESTY of those specious claims! (the VETERANS themselves would NOT have tolerated POSEURS as MEMBERS of the UCV!)

face it LS, what you're posting is FALSE! whether you like it or not, you have either swallowed the REVISIONISTS bait/hook OR you know better & are trying to cover-up the INCONVIENIENT facts.

fwiw, as a "mixed-blood", i've spent much of the last 30 odd years researching "non-white" participation in the CSA forces. fwiw, i'd bet that i know a GREAT deal more on that one,admittedly narrow, subject than you do.

as the preceding "claims" of yours have been trounced & exposed as FALSE, would you like to offer another theory????

free dixie,sw