Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission was created by Congress to inform the public about the impact Abraham Lincoln had on the development of our nation, and to find the best possible ways to honor his accomplishments. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives appointed a fifteen-member commission to commemorate the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln and to emphasize the contribution of his thoughts and ideals to America and the world.
The official public Bicentennial Commemoration launches February 2008 and closes February 2010, with the climax of the Commemoration taking place on February 12, 2009, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
Across the country communities, organizations and individuals have already begun to plan parades, museum exhibitions, performances, art installations and much more.
You keep referring to Robert E. Lee as "bobby". You realize that "bobby lee" was a term of derision in the 1860's and not a compliment.
How could it? One of the main criteria for statehood was population. If the federal government forbade one segment from one region of the country from entering the state, then the federal government was predetermining what the state would be. Here's a thought. Why not give the the state the freedom determine that all by itself? (Maybe because the federal government was afraid that it would want to be a slave state)
Bloody Kansas - No, I reject the notion that all the evil was on one side of this very heated emotional political conflict. The Border Ruffians were a reaction to the large influx of immigrants that were pouring into the state (at the invitation of the federal government) to overwhelm its make up in order to admit Kansas as a free state.
what difference does it make to a slave? That is really a cheap shot disguised as an argument and from lurking and reading threads, especially on the Civil War, the cheap shot seems to the number one means of argument.
To Lee, it would make a large difference especially to the slave population that in 1860 was not ready for freedom. The large majority of them could not read, write, had no training in managing a household or establishing a business. This time of waiting on the Lord was as necessary for the slave as for the slave owner.
"No one said it wasn't talked about, . . ."
Bubba did, it quoting Morison.
" . . . caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof."
"Myth" means made up, didn't happen, by the way.
Nothing forbad Southern people from moving to the west, the north or the east. Hundreds of thousands of people from southern states in fact did move into territories where the Federal government banned slavery --- Lincoln's family being one of them.
Now, you can, with a straight face if possible, say that nothing forbade Southern people from moving to the west, to the north or the east and be factual. But, the big, "slaves not welcomed here" sign was a big deterrent - just as the government knew it would be.
And in his letter he also makes it clear that such an act was wrong. Yet he did it anyway.
Could you please point out to me the phrase where Lee says it was wrong? Thank you.
By that time slavery had been in existence in what was to become the United States for over 200 years. If the slave population of 1860 wasn't ready for freedom then when would it be?
"But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . ."
It's pretty obvious that Lee saw the Southern actions as unconstitutional and as open rebellion.
I don't know how to answer because you are ignorning the central point of my post and hoping to engage me instead in a debate that has nothing to do with Lee's quote. So, maybe you could rephrase your question and concentrate more on what Lee's said and not some side show of your own.
And you have also posted your claim that such and such Supreme Court decisions are invalid while so and so Supreme Court decision are valid and proper. And the only difference seems to be that the valid ones are the ones you agree with and the invalid ones are those you disagree with. I'm merely pointing out that Supreme Court decisions are valid and binding regardless of what you think of them. Nowhere does it state that they need your approval to be legitimate.
SC decisions do need to follow established law, which they most certainly did not.
In your opinion. The fact that you happen to believe that they were not following what you consider 'established law' is irrelevant when compared to the opinions of the memebers of the court.
The Confication Acts of 1861 and 1862 and the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 gave the government the authority to seize property being used to further the Southern rebellion. All upheld by the Supreme Court. You can quibble about the 'blacks as persons' part but the acts I mentioned did not pretend to do that. It took the 14the Amendment to overturn Taney's odious Scott v. Sandford decision.
You've yet to answer the question I asked about why the North couldn't let the South go and petition the Confederate government for recompense.
And if the South said 'No'? What recompense is there then? The South walked away from treaty obligations and responsibility for the national debt, they took whatever federal property they could get their hands on, all without any thought for the interests of the remaining states. Wouldn't the time to settle matters like that be before the separation when the interests of both sides can be protected?
I have explained the quote in my post 201. I will refer you back there.
Of course there are countless references but this one from Wikipedia was quick and easy to find.
"During the Battle of Gettysburg, Longstreet advocated disengagement from the enemy after the first day's battle, embarking on a strategic flanking movement to place themselves on the Union line of communication, and inviting a Union attack. He argued that Lee had agreed before the campaign that this "strategic offensive, tactical defensive" would be the proper course. But Lee had settled on the tactical offensive, fearing perhaps a redeployment as advocated by Longstreet would result in a loss of morale within the ranks."
"You keep referring to Robert E. Lee as "bobby". You realize that "bobby lee" was a term of derision in the 1860's and not a compliment."
Three points. 1) It's not the 1860s any more and 2) the name was used as a term of endearment by Shleby Foote, among others, many times and one which I adopted.
3) It's use by those who respect Lee takes away from the detractors who would use it disparageningly.
I know that you are aware of this, but the Longstreet version was very foreign to Lee's staff who sat on the planning of Pennsylvania strategy. When Longstreet wrote a series of articles to justify his behavior at Gettysburg, he did so by saying that Lee alone was to blame. Of course, Lee's staff could not let that charge lie and so fired back, through articles, that Longstreet was responsible for the loss.
The debate was public and very impolite to say the least. Longstreet actively defending himself at the expense of Lee and Lee's staff actively blaming Longstreet to defend Lee.
Michael Shaara used Longstreet's arguments for the basis of his book and the movie that followed.
So any description of Gettysburg that begins with "General Longstreet" and then proceeds to lay out the Longstreet argument has to be held suspect.
I like what Lee said..."Even as poor a soldier as I am can generally discover mistakes after it is all over. But if I could only induce these wise gentlemen (editors of southern newspapers) who see so clearly beforehand, to communicate with me in advance, instead of waiting for the evil has come upon us - to let me know what they knew all the time - it would be far better for my reputation and, what is of more consequence, far better for the cause."
Of course Wikipedia is not the best source, thus my disclaimer. You really don't have to repeat the obvious.
"When Longstreet wrote a series of articles to justify his behavior at Gettysburg, he did so by saying that Lee alone was to blame."
Please show me where Longstreet solely blames Lee.
Point 2: Well, I guess if Shelby Foote uses it, it must be okay. (yes, there is sarcasm here). If you use it, I can only see the sneer and not the affection. Why not use his name, how he addressed himself. Robert.
Point 3: No, that's not true.
I agree with all of your points. Lee was honest about it, unlike the lost cause myth makers. There was nothing legal about secession and the government had every right to resist revolution.
For me, even though this was a horrendously bitter time, so much cream rose to the top that I can find great inspiration in these men.
So, yes, the political intrique can make up threads and threads and threads that bring us no closer to resolution than we were in 1860, but when I read about Stonewall Jackson's life, I find much to admire. The same is true when I read about Hancock.
So, even though I waded into the political arena a little, and I will wade right back out... I like this period of our history because of the men it produced.
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.