Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
http://patriotpost.us/
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
To deny their existence even with factual, source accounts is nothing short of disingenous.
FALSE.
"Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September."
Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1995) pp. 218-219
However, even Wlat found out, you have to put data in context. Simply posting quotes does not constitute a debate. Sorry Luis
Stand and I have attend such functions and meet folks of all stripes who are proud of their heritage. Edgerton and Winbush are more vocal than most blacks; there are plenty more who share their common American Heritage. Instead of posting rehash from the Web, go out and meet these folks - there's alot to be learned from them, that is if you're not above them.
Divorce is the failure of the marriage.
Secession was the failure of all sides involved at arriving at an acceptable agreement according to the rules agreed upon via the Constitution. That Constitution provided with all the means necessary for the survival of the Union as constructed.
It was the job of the people's elected representatives to work in the best interest of the nation and her people. It appears that they who promoted the notion of secession, were doing it with the best interest of the minority of people who owned slaves.
People want to spend time debating the right to secede, and ignore the question of whether the reasons for the secession were moral or not, and whether it was in the best interest of all of the people of the United States and subsequently, the nation. It obviously was not.
Secession was a revolution against the Constitutional government precipitated by the Confederate State's growing dissatisfaction at their diminishing power in the Senate, an increasing rejection of Constitutionally enacted laws and tariffs, the rejection of the outcome of a Constitutional presidential election, and fear of the economic impact on them by the inevitable emancipation of slaves being promoted by the Northern States.
While Cuba did not want to rule Spain, the Confederacy did intend to contest the United States for control of this continent, and promoted the idea of expanding beyond them into other nations. So the difference between Cuba and Spain and the US and the CSA, is that Cuba did not promote the idea of expanding her power, and competing with Spain in that expansion.
"Even after the bombardment of Fort Sumter, a military action that resulted in no deaths, dialog could have been maintained. Instead, the South was invaded by military force."
So, if Mexico bombards Brownsville tomorrow, and occupies it, you would argue in favor of dialog while Mexican troops occupied it?
I can't believe that you think that Lincoln "blundered" into a shooting war, when the shooting was initiated by the other side.
South Carolina secedes as a reaction to Lincoln's election in December, six States follow suit; they all secede as a protest to the result of a Constitutional election.
Confederate troops fire on the Star of the West.
The Confederacy creates its own Constitution, and electes a President BEFORE Lincoln is inaugurated.
The CSA demands the immediate surrender of Union ports in their States, southern troops seize them; no attempts of diplomacy were made by the CSA to arrive at a withdrawal without use of force.
Confederate troops fire on the Rhoda Shannon.
Lincoln is inaugurated, and his entire inaugural speech is spent on reassuring the South that he does not intend to emancipate the slaves, that he wished to maintain the Union intact, and that diplomacy is the solution to secession.
Confederate troops begin the bombardment of Fort Sumter eight days after Lincoln is inaugurated.
If indeed the States had a right to secede, and a right to become a sovereign nation unto themselves, then how can you blame Lincoln for retailating against armed attacks on American citizens and American troops by a foreign government?
If there was a failure to use diplomacy, it was a failure by the CSA to negotiate the withdrawal of Union troops from CSA States.
The CSA started the "shooting war", not the Union.
Secession did not start the "shooting war", the shooting being done by Confederate troops started the shooting war...a war they subsequently lost.
Thank God for that.
You meant to tell me that a quote from the vice-President of the Confederacy on what the the Confederacy stood for and what principles it was founded on, has no relevance to what the Confederacy stood for and what principles it was founded on?
Now...list the shooting incidents that preceded any one of those listed above and were initiated by Union troops.
Denial does not make it go away either.
"You may not believe me, but things was just that way, Black is nothing other than a darker shade of rebel gray." - Rebelaires
What was the reason for secession?
That's the quote I questioned.
You are waaaaaay short of "100,000+".
Let me recap your various debates on this thread
None defended successfully.
What point are your really trying to make on this thread?
Luis: What was the reason for secession?
550+ posts and I'm still waiting for my answer.
LOL!
None of my ancestors fought in Urban II's People's Crusade, none ever occupied Outremer, none fought Cathars, none sailed with Henry St. Clair and Antonio Zeno across the Atlantic, and to the best of my knowledge, none were on board the Lunar landing module with Neil Armstrong...but I can talk about all those things with a great deal of authority as well.
You won't answer will you!
I've gone to great lengths in explaining why I believe that secession was not a "right"...the fact that you don't agree with my reasons does not make them disappear.
Now, all you have to do is answer a simple question...what reason did the seceding States have to secede from the Union?
the legality of secession
Mmmm....
You claimed that I never answered that question...I guess I did.
Now, what reasons did the States have to secede from the Union?
You lost the war...I don't think I am the one not defending things successfully.
That would make me the oldest American Veteran out there, now wouldn't it?!
Arte you afraid to answer my question?
I should like to engage you in debate, Louis, but it's all one-sided!
Gen. Earl Van Dorn, CSA:
"During the fight the battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*] Our artillerists double-shotted their guns and cut the black regiments to pieces, and brought their battery safely off. * * * * It has been stated, repeatedly, for two weeks past, that a large number, perhaps one-fourth, of Van Dorn's force were [*in italics*] negro soldiers [*end italics*], and the statement is fully confirmed by this unfortunate engagement. The Southern rebels have forced their miserable negroes to take up arms, to destroy this Government, and enslave us and our children."
-- "Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette" - 26 Feb 63 edition quotes an item originally published in the "Savannah Republican" sometime between November 1862 - February 1863:
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.