Posted on 10/11/2006 9:13:04 PM PDT by SideoutFred
Note that this came during a time when the tide was turning against the South.
Note how the Southern soldier stands upright, with a broken sword underfoot, while the Northern Soldier is dejected and "broken"... (Where have we heard that before?)
Note the phrase, "useless war."
Should we have listened to the defeatists back then, and have allowed the odious practice of slavery to go on?
Should we listen to the defeatists now, and allow Islamo-fascism to rule the day?
The source is
http://psycmeistr.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-if-we-had-listened-to-defeatists.html#links
What if we listen to the defeatist now?
Uh-oh... now, you just *know* the "The South was on the side of Righteousness, it wasn't about slavery, we'd be better off if the CSA had won, blah, blah, blah" contingent ain't gonna approve.
Beat me to it.
DixiePing
I spent a lovely afternoon, a few weeks back, with the psycmeistr. We met up to FReep/PW the Jack (cut and run) Murtha visit here in support of whistle-blower Colleen Rowley.
An absolute hoot!!!
If we'd listened to them then, we'd probably still have a constitutional balance of power. Slavery was going to end no matter what the outcome within 20 years with the Industrial Revolution.
Ok, I'm just spouting off, but I see your point !
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof, The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union . . . Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare . . . She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy . . . When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude. The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution . . . designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions . . . In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States . . . By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights . . . They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture . . . They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose . . . They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State . . . We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South . . . Source: ASCII Text Prepared by Justin Sanders from E.W. Winkler, ed., *Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas*, pp61-66.
< P >
The Union defeated the Confederacy by killing them and destroying their property until they couldn't take anymore and they surrendered. This is also how we one WWI, how we defeated the Germans and the Japanese in WWII and how we defeated the North Koreans and Chinese in the Korean war. This is hardly how we are fighting the war against Islamo-facists.
Protecting home, family, sovereignty - that is honorable and worthy.
And the most horrible things said about the President then.........
"Of course the rankest abuse came from the copperheads, among whom none was more inventive in his vituperation than a Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy. Lincoln, he wrote, was "but the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism"—indeed a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero." As the election of 1864 approached, Pomeroy editorialized: "The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."
So are we the north or the south?
Thomas Nast's Original "Compromise with the South" Print
This illustration makes a political statement that captures the mood of the nation at the time. The print is titled, "Compromise with the South", and the caption reads, "Dedicated to the Chicago Platform." Basically, George McClellan was running against Lincoln, and the Democratic convention was held in Chicago. The Chicago Platform, which McClellan was running on was to end the war by compromising with the south.
It is Rudy Giuliani or hil clintoon.
You guys in Cali are due to learn what real New York City Italian food taste like.
Let's get behind Rudolph Giuliani and win and then we can sit with a glass of wine and have a nice salad and then a little piece of fish and then a taste of pasta and then some beef and then......... we really start to eat.
You should connect to the "Brooklyn" in you!!
Keep in mind, New Yorkers fought and died at the Alamo.
I know that is Texas, but if a New Yorker goes that far west........ we would most certainly hit the coast.
OK, enough rambling.
Are you really saying the Democrats in 1861 were "giving up to win peace?"
Absolutely agree. We fight wars not to win them anymore.
Thank you for that...excellent. Where did you find that?
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.