Posted on 01/18/2006 1:03:24 PM PST by neverdem
BTT...at least he didn't say they were Nazis....that's their new kool aid....CSA equals Nazi Germany
We have universities, cities and forts all over this nation named after nazis...imagine.
these idiots who lick Abe's toes are far worse than he was...at least he had a war for rationalizing...they just have a chip
Yea...that says a lot for Northern education huh...:)
Hummel's argument is based on hindsight, not on what reasonable and informed people had reason to believe at the time on the basis of the available evidence. It's one of the tricks historical writers play on the dead.
Whatever the reasons why war began, by its end it was certainly, whatever else it was, also a war to free the slaves, and Lincoln did much to make it so. It was Seward who brought up the pending 13th Amendment at Hampton Roads and said that the Southern states, if they reentered the union would be able to vote against it. That was only what was true. If the secessionists rejoined the union, they would be able to have some voice in the affairs of he nation. Hay and Nicolay say that Stephens and the other Confederates made more of this than the Unionists did.
But Lincoln made it clear that Emancipation was always his policy. Lincoln who made it clear that slavery was doomed. According to Hay and Nicolay, Lincoln wasn't a party to Seward's way of persuading the rebels, and expected the 13th Amendment to pass, with Southern support. That's one reason why peace efforts failed at Hampton Roads and on other occasions. Stephens by contrast, wanted war with the Mexican regime, as a way of getting cooperation between the two sections without giving up the Confederacy.
You apparently want to make the war into a conflict between the compromising Lincoln and the rebels who stood firm for their "freedom" and "independence." But observers, then or now, have to consider just what independence would have meant for the slave states and what the Confederacy would have done with it. It's not balanced to judge Lincoln on the practical means he undertook to pursue his ends and not consider the practical policies that the Confederates adopted or were likely to adopt.
Don't be deceived by the "everyone believed in secession before Lincoln came along argument." It's not true. Many, if not most Americans, believed unilateral secession to be unconstitutional -- a form of revolt or revolution that could only be justified as a rebellion against real tyranny and repression.
A state could still turn to Congress or the constitutional amendment process to win approval for its separation from the union, but for a state simply to declare its relationship with the union dissolved wouldn't have been accepted by many Americans as constitutional.
More Civil War stuff.
If you watch Fox News (drudgingly I do from time to time) and listen to some of the more ardent party supporters, I gather that's about the jist of it.
I'm willing to cut the guy a little slack for what he had to do to save the country.
And just how would that have happened? If the southern states so valued their institution of slavery that they were willing to launch a rebellion to protect it then under what circumstances do you think they would they be willing to change their mind and allow the central government to outlaw it?
Of course, Abraham Lincoln supported the Fugitive Slave Act... an unconstitutional act of sweeping federal power designed to protect slavery in the southern states as an inducement to keep the southern states in the union.
As odious as it was, how was the Fugitive Slave Act unconsitutional in light of the Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3? Lincoln's reluctant support of the Fugitive Slave Act was based on a respect for the constitution not seen in most southern leaders.
At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, Lincoln assured the Confederate representatives that, if they re-joined the union, the Emancipation Proclamation would become inoperative...
A bit of an exaggeration, but if your point is that Lincoln did not pursue the war that the south forced upon him in order to end slavery then I have no arguement with that. The end of slavery may have been a fortunate outcome of the war, but preservation of the Union was the reason for the struggle on the Union side. Always was.
Lincoln's countless unconstitutional actions...
How about naming a few?
You would need to be pretty naieve to believe it though. Considering that slavery was protected by every southern state constitution that I've seen, considering that slavery and slave imports were specifically protected by the confederate constitution, then it takes a pretty broad stretch of the imagination to think that southern independence would have hastened it's end. Just what do you base that on?
it is a product of the "public screwl sistim", imVho, that turns out predominantly IDIOTS & blind FOOLS.
lincoln was about as moral as wee willie klintoon. NOTHING was important to him & his coven of thugs except POWER & $$$$$$$$$$$.
ALL of them would have done ANYTHING for either/both. ANYTHING!
free dixie,sw
For example?
How much sense does it make for a country to attack itself.
You would have to direct that question to the rebel forces in Charleston harbor.
And no...nobody was trying to install a new government...so no definitions of civil war, please
OK, how about rebellion? Would rebellion be more accurate?
I think immature, sounds like a good reason for what Lincoln did!
And what label would you place on the southern actions?
That is simply not true. Stephens, who you refer to, called slavery the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy. Confederate politicians often spoke of expanding their new nation to the south to Cuba, Mexico and Central America. Yancey and Butler argued for reopening of the Atlantic Slave trade to supply the labor needs for an expanding empire. Those men, at that time, saw slavery as the future, not a 'dieing institution.'
To say that industrialization and technology would have caused slavery to die under it's own inefficiency in the decades after the Civil War may or may not be accurate and can only be stated as hindsight. (From Hitler to Stalin to Mao, we know well that mines, mills and factories can employ slaves as well as freemen). The men of the Confederacy who lived through that time and made the decisions, saw slavery as integral to their future.
My friend, your facts are clearly wrong. Lincoln, at Hampton Roads, told the Confederates that the Emancipation Proclamation Would Not Be Changed and that he intended to see the 13th Amendment enacted. His only concession was offering to compensate slave owners for their losses.
Look it up.
Yeah, save the country, that's what he did. Sure, whatever. Your first sentence sounds like that 'hard-hitting' three hour praise service the History Channel just ran..
hardly anyone else cared a damn about either the "preservation of slavery" OR about "the plight of the slaves".
for the VAST majority of northerners the WBTS was ONLY about "preserving the union". for the great majority of southerners the war was ONLY about FREEDOM for dixie AND "getting the DAMNyankee boot off our necks".
150 years of elitist/leftist/socialist/PC/revisionist LIES does not change those simple FACTS. FACTS are FACTS!
the struggle against the DAMNyankee elites continues by other means than arms.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Thank you!
Yeah. I was thinking about him being 199 years old. Isn't that just an amazing thing to contemplate! Yes. He does get birthday wishes from me too!
***HAPPY BIRTHDAY to GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE***
it's a GRAND day.
free dixie,sw
Well, hello there... Bet there are many festivals and celebrations going on today for Lee. Anyway, this phrase;(said with groundward sweep of ostrich-plumed, GRAY, slouch hat), causes me to envision one of JEB Stuart's Cavalry officers getting off their horse to greet me.
And yes, it is a GRAND day!
No. I WILL not cite examples for you. If you are incredibly concerned about the matter, go find them in the research provided. The reason I will not cite examples, is because your words are quite antagonistic, which means you really don't want examples, you just want to argue your point and, "WIN". I'm not interested.
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.