Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Conversation with Thomas Fleming, historian and author of A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.
Thomas Fleming is known for his provocative, politically incorrect, and very accessible histories that challenge many of the clichés of current American history books. Fleming is a revisionist in the best conservative sense of the word. His challenges to accepted wisdom are not with an agenda, but with a relentless hunger for the truth and a passion to present the past as it really was, along with capturing the attitudes and culture of the times.
In The New Dealers War Fleming exposed how the radical Left in FDRs administration almost crippled the war effort with their utopian socialist experimentation, and how Harry Truman led reform efforts in the Senate that kept production in key materials from collapse.
In The Illusion of Victory, Fleming showed that while liberal academics may rate Woodrow Wilson highly, that he may have been the most spectacularly failed President in history. 100,000 American lives were sacrificed to favor one colonial monarchy over another, all so Wilson could have a seat at the peace table and negotiate The League of Nations. Instead, the result of WWI was Nazism and Communism killing millions for the rest of the century.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I knew you wouldn’t be able to comprehend the import of that 41%. Sad really.
It doesn’t matter much what the percentage of the vote went to the dhimmicrat in Washington state - I make no claims about the liberal infestation here. But if you can’t see how seriously in trouble Texas is by virtue of the dhimmi vote then your insipid gibe at BroJoeK about voting for Øbongo makes you look like an idiot.
Here, perhaps this will help: ALMOST....AS MANY....TEXANS....VOTED....FOR....ØBONGO....AS FOR....THE OTHER GUY.
Is that a bit clearer?
The war was started by the slave power as it existed in 1860. They had many faults but abolitionism is not one that I have ever heard them accused of.
They could also not be accused of supporting the tariff of abominations, which was passed back in about 1830, unless you have evidence of a time machine.
God had no part in those actions, right?
By your own oft-repeated standard, states are still free to leave the same way they entered meaning with the approval of Congress.
It was true then, it's true now.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln, in forming an army and invading the Confederacy border committed an act of war."
None of which happened until after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter, and formally declared war on May 6, 1861.
Gosh, who knew that the slave power that organized to take over US forts, and fired on Ft Sumter was controlled by the Republicans?
We are so lucky that we have you to tell us these news flashes. (/sarcasm)
One point is the 1820 issues had been resolved by 1860. They had new issues.
One issue in 1860 was slavery in the territories. The slave power wanted it. The Republicans didn’t. The Republicans were willing to pass legislation and offer amendments to prevent slavery in the territories. The slave power was willing to start a war to assure slavery in the territories.
“By your own oft-repeated standard, states are still free to leave the same way they entered meaning with the approval of Congress.”
Half a million American men died proving this is not so.
What is your plan to peel off Austin from Texas? Certainly there is a hotbed of liberals there.
Come Monday and find out.
“willing to start a war”
Then why did they state they simply wanted to leave? They were happy leaving the territories to the North.
Lee personally freed slaves, when forced to do so by his father in law’s will, after going to court in the midst of war several times in an attempt to avoid freeing them.
The girl slaves born after his father in law wrote his will were sold off, as not being under the terms of his father in law’s will. In the midst of the war he paid slave catchers for kidnapped persons who could be represented as slaves, captured by diversion of the pretended confederate cavalry to slave catching from screening duties during his military invasion of PA. Then at Gettysburg he had the cheek to blame his lack of intelligence on the Union forces on others.
So he personally freed more slaves than he ever himself owned?
I wonder if Lincoln can say the same.
No, they died preventing the slave power from using an oligarchy to make war against the US.
Lee didn’t free more slaves than he owned. Rather, he delayed freedom granted by his father in law, to the extent he could. My understanding is that all but 50,000 US slaves were freed by Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the hard fighting of the US forces.
Certainly that is far more than were freed by RE Lee.
The slave power thrived on lies.
Kind of like their defenders today.
Like I said. Come Monday and find out. :)
“Lee didnt free more slaves than he owned.”
How many slaves did he own? How many did he free? Is the number of slaves that he freed > the number that he owned?
“My understanding”
Did Lincoln free any personally?
I hesitate to speak for the Divine.
I would suggest that being opposed to Slavery would put one on the side of the Angles, while being a supporter of slavery would put one into the opposition.
Certainly the EP was his personal policy. Noone else was responsible for it.
That puts about 4 million into Lincoln’s side of the ledger.
Let me know when the Lee family releases his slave ledgers.
Hmmm. Interesting point. Say, can the southern born Democrat Party, say, they ever freed, any slaves?
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.