hopefully you'll live a long, prosperous and harmonious life
Many blessings and go in a good way.
I DO believe you have managed to elevate the discourse . . .
Posted on 02/12/2011 6:06:39 AM PST by Notary Sojac
You nailed it. Leaders in the south had aspirations of perpetuating and expanding slavery and would do ANYTHING to stop those who opposed them. The writing was on the wall regarding slavery but they chose to be belligerent and traitorous as they cooked up their scheme to rip our nation apart.
Their despicable actions plunged our entire country into a miserable war that cost 600,000+ lives. That is the legacy of the confederacy and revisionism about crops and tariffs is simply a smokescreen.
Pot=Kettle. LOL, and your "You did too/you did not!" took eleven.
"That he was not in favor of 'equal rights' for blacks and whites put him with 99% of Americans north and south."
.........................Ditto, 2-2011
So, how does that add up?
How about this?
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
...................A. Lincoln, 3-1863
In favor of equal rights in some states and not others?
"...was waged 'in order that each of you may have through this free government . . . an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you all may have equal privileges in the race of life'..."
A. Lincoln 1864
Contradiction with his support of Corwin? You make that call.
Apparently that makes me a troll.
If you're really interested in elevating the discourse you'll stick with the facts and forsake the ad hominem attacks and Alinsky tactics.
Nothing quite matches the “utter desperation” of those who lie, distort, and dissemble in order to defend the southern slave aristocracy and its failed attempt at rebellion.
I'll allow Mr. Lincoln to answer that question. Notice that I use his full quote and not you cherry-picked excerpt that you use to intentionally distort the man's sentiments. What you do Pea Ridge is dishonest.
[A]nything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. ... I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects----certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man ."
-- First Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Contradiction with his support of Corwin? You make that call.
The Corwin amendment changed nothing. It simply said explicitly what was in fact already well established. Congress had no authority over slavery in the States. That it forbade a Constitutional amendment to end slavery was already the case in practice. Gaining the 3/4 approval of states needed to ratify an amendment was impossible then with 33 states and would still impossible today with 50 states when you have 15 slave states voting against such an amendment. The reality is that Corwin simply reaffirmed the status quo.
You will also notice that Lincoln rejected the earlier version called Crittenden Compromise. It had the same Constitutional amendment features and Corwin but with the stipulation allowing slavery into the territories. Lincoln opposed that stipulation and urged rejection of the amendment.
That was totally consistent with his position and the Republican party platform of 1860. He promised that he had no desire or intention to interfere with slavery where it existed but would oppose any further expansion of slavery.
I would like to politely suggest that you drop the hyperbole and stick to the facts. For example, instead of slinging accusations, such as ‘lie’, cite specific examples of perceived lies and provide facts to support your argument.
In a previous thread you were gushing with admiration for the thoughtful and diligent replies posted by rustbucket. If you were being sincere, why not attempt to emulate those replies with thoughtful, honest replies of your own, free of hyperbole and vitriolic rhetoric?
Take your use of the word ‘rebellion’. That term was first used during the war as a political and propaganda tool to incite suspicion and hatred of Southerners by falsely implying that the South had devious plans to destroy the United States government, when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It was also easier to convince young men to take up arms and kill their former fellow countrymen when those young men are led to believe that their former fellow countrymen are deviously scheming to destroy all that they have and all that they ever will have.
The South seceded, secession is not rebellion, and that is the cold, hard truth. If you can’t or won’t accept that, just say so and we’ll know that your future use of the term ‘rebellion’ is fueled by your prejudices and a stubborn unwillingness to venture outside your comfort zone.
Have a blessed day.
You do not get to pick which terms are acceptable. The term rebellion is appropriate and if you disagree, well I’ll just have to live with that disapproval.
It's not about acceptability, it's about applicability and the term 'rebellion' simply does not apply. It's precisely the same as the term 'civil war'. It doesn't apply, but, for politically correct reasons, it continues to be used.
The term rebellion is appropriate
Only for political correctness.
and if you disagree
The term 'rebellion' is only 'appropriate' for reasons that I've stated before: to incite hatred, fear and loathing for the Confederacy and Southerners, specifically white Southerners, for political and propaganda purposes. If you want to continue to use the term 'rebellion', at least admit that it's technically incorrect but 'appropriate' through the lens of politically correct historical distortion.
well I’ll just have to live with that disapproval.
And hopefully you'll live a long, prosperous and harmonious life and can one day accept that just because something makes you feel good doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.
Many blessings and go in a good way.
Robert E. Lee thought it was exactly the same thing.
So did another gentleman from Virginia named James Madison.
Well then that makes two occasions that Marse Robert was wrong.
You take 11 paragraphs to respond and say ... virtually nothing.
If one wanted to establish another Lincoln myth, then what would be the methodology to quickly obtain acceptance and source credibility in today's historical publishing community? You would begin with a general, loosely examined place to posit your contentions...say a blog. So you write a thesis like contention and post it on the web, knowing that you and others will refer back to it in future expansions of this Lincoln lore.
I'll do you a favor and assume you have the flu, rather than some more serious and permanent condition. Are we talking about Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan or Epeli Nailatikau of Fiji? You could certainly create a great lore based on a tiny bit of fact of we were talking about such obscure figures.
But Guelzo was writing about Lincoln and the documentation and information about Lincoln is already available. The pyramid of facts and interpretation is already there. You don't have to construct an inverted one based on a blog post or two.
And what he writes is already known to those familiar with Lincoln and Civil War studies in recent years. You only have to get a copy of Gabor Boritt's Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream to understand where Guelzo is coming from and probably to see the citations for his quotations.
If you're not familiar with Boritt's work, that could be a sign that you guys only see Lincoln from one very narrow Confederocentric point of view.
I learned that a ways back up the trail, but thanks for the well wishes. I've also learned that sometimes being right is its own reward as well ;-)
So you figure that he was unique among Americans in holding such an odd and extreme statist view of the matter, huh? Or maybe it was just him and Lincoln.
The extent to which diehard Lost Causers from Jefferson Davis to you will bend over backwards to deny the obvious--that they rebelled--is truly amazing.
Hell, that should be the point of pride--that you're people who (wrongly, in my opinion) said "Hell, No!" and took up arms. Outlaws! Rebels! No, instead you keep insisting that your 1860 forebearers were mild-mannered lawyers and self public servants whose only thoughts were of lofty goals and abstract notions of a political nirvana, and who were only forced to fight by the refusal of the Damn Yankees to see the moral rightness and legal correctness of what they were doing. You should be saying "Hell, yeah, we rebelled! Up yours!" instead of arguing the definition of "rebellion." You drain all the blood out of your own heritage.
Seek wa FRiend and return when you’re ready to have a peaceful, honest discussion.
Self loathing, apparently...
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.