Posted on 06/23/2013 5:55:07 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
From the time Abraham Lincoln entered the White House nearly a century and a half ago, there has been an anti-Lincoln tradition in American life. President John Tyler’s son, writing in 1932, seemed to speak for a silent minority: “I think he was a bad man,” wrote Lyon Gardiner Tyler, “a man who forced the country into an unnecessary war and conducted it with great inhumanity.”
Throughout his presidency Lincoln was surrounded by rivals, even among his own cabinet. Outside the White House, his many enemies included conservative Whigs, Democrats, northern copperheads and New England abolitionists. Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy, sniped that Lincoln was a
“worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”
Shortly before his reelection Pomeroy added: “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Be careful that you don’t get your pant cuffs caught in the chain as you backpeddle ;-)
Of course Booker T. Washington was to some extent a politician, who existed in a world controlled by others.
He needed to make at least some peace with the southern whites, and gave at least lip service to Lee/Jackson as a way of reducing support for racist murderers from otherwise decent people of the south.
Any other evidence that Lee taught a black Sunday school? I have heard that Jackson had, but in no way was he the first.
A church in Savannah, First African Baptist, was running a Sunday School in 1826
It is indeed fitting that Davis, Lee and Jackson are on Stone Mountain. Like their reputation, the rock is a soft exfoliating structure that turns to dust under a hammer.
I myself would remove Davis and substitute Longstreet, but that wouldn’t suit the lost cause folks. They want not just appreciation of the soldiers who fought in the awful cause, but appreciation of the awful cause itself.
That was the only joke I could think of about a fish needing to be taught how to swim.
Probably Paula Deen told it once, and now she will take flack for it.
I would say the issue of secession had not been unresolved, it had not been raised.
The way to raise a legal question is to file suit, not to fire cannons. Since the insurrection decided to fire cannons, the legal issue was put on hold until the war was over.
When it was over, the legal issue was resolved: Texas v. White. Secession is legal, but not the way (unilateral state secession) pretended by the insurrection.
Is anyone keeping a tally of how many lies he spouts here. I have caught in a few myself. My favorite from him was that General Lee developed the tactic to kill soldiers who didn't meet their military objectives.
Please explain.
Texas v. White goes on at length and repeatedly about “indissoluble” and “perpetual” union.
I can't stop laughing!!!!!!! Do you read much Don?
Certainly a constitutional amendment could permit, or force any state out of the union.
That would have to be by widespread, nearly unanamious consent (3/4s of states plus House and Senate).
That level of political agreement would resolve the controvery between a state and the federal government that secession would normally bring to the supreme court.
He is referring to a very late war order that Lee issued to the AofNoVa 8 weeks before the end at Appomattox. He ordered his "file closers" to actually shoot stragglers. This order was obviously not carried out. I saw it, he posted it once.
I posed the orders issued by General Lee.
You commented that he was poor, picked on, and desperate, and that noone would follow his orders anymore.
And you call me a liar and a crazy uncle? LOL
The fact he admits to being a friend of that banned POS says it all.
AH!
Yes, I forgot about the “consent of the states” sentence.
You mean Southern states had the temerity to defend their own turf, state sovereignty, and liberty against fedguv tyranny and overreach?
History repeats itself.
Note this in heaven.
Central-va is comeing to my defense, referencing my statement that Lee put companies of sharp shooters behind his attacking brigades to shoot stragglers or those who would cower from US Army fire. He agrees that Lee gave such an order, but of course we all know that noone would follow Lee’s orders. Not like Lee was a real General or anything.
The only tyranny or overreach was by the slavers against their brother states.
They didn’t defend their own turf initially or exclusively. Rather they attacked US Army soldiers at Ft. Sumter, which was built by the US on a shoal, said shoal never being part of the land mass of South Carolina.
Further, they attacked US forces in the territories of what is now New Mexico, and Arizona.
They also attacked NY City, and Vermont as well as the better publicized attacks in PA, MA, KY and MO
What the hell are you talking about numbnuts? You obviously have me mistaken for someone else. I made no such comment about General Lee.
I saw that - hilarious ;-)
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.