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 FDR’s 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 ...
my comment you quoted was about the living in the north vs the south, we have descendants of slaves in both areas. What is your point, that each race lives under a different federal government?
D
n't need n
bl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818309/posts
Are those controversial, Masah Breckenridge?
Davis was a “moderate” only in that he was not a fire-breather. But in 1850 he was in the forefront of secession. He dominated the administration of the feckless doughface, Franklin Pierce, and did what he could to make sure that the Army was safe for the South. It is true that he would rather have been one of the Virginia generals rather than in the Richmond white house, but everything he did was for “the Cause.”
First, I'd say you're just playing definition games with "confederate" and "major battle."
In reality, Maryland was a Union state which suffered not one but four different Confederate invasions -- May '62, September '62, June '63 and July '64.
These resulted in three major battles -- Front Royal, Antietam/Sharpsburg & Monocacy -- causing 25,000 casualties on both sides, 4,000 of them killed.
In every Confederate march into Union territory -- without exception -- troops "lived off the land" taking what they needed, often destroying what they thought useful to the enemy, sometimes "paying" for "requisitions" with worthless Confederate money.
Yes, slave-holding families did often welcome Confederate troops, but Union states remained loyal precisely because slave-holders outnumbered non-slave-holders several to one.
These Unionist families no more welcomed Confederate troops than most Confederacy families welcomed Union troops.
Pennsylvania suffered not one but three different Confederate invasions -- 1862, 1863 & 1864.
The Battle of Gettysburg (1863) was the war's largest, resulting in 50,000 casualties including 7,000 killed.
The 1862 and 1864 invasions did not result in major battles, but did leave trails of destruction, pillaging and even kidnappings of civilians.
Union states of Kentucky and Missouri both suffered from major and minor Confederate military operations throughout the war, suffering untold casualties and property destruction.
The Union state of Kansas suffered the Lawrence Massacre and Battle of Baxter Springs in 1863, plus a series of battles (Trading Post & Mine Creek) in October 1864 between Confederates under Price and the Union under Pleasanton.
These were not "major" by Virginia battle standards, but did include thousands of troops and hundreds of casualties.
They were certainly "major" to everyone involved.
Union state of Indiana suffered small Confederate raids from Newburg (1862), Hines (1863) and a larger one by Morgan (1863), with Morgan's raid moving on to Ohio, eventually involving many thousands of troops.
Union territory of Oklahoma saw battles throughout the war, beginning at Round Mountain in November 1861, ending in Stand Waite's final surrender in June 1865.
These typically (i.e., Honey Springs) involved thousands of troops with hundreds of casualties.
Union New Mexico and Arizona territories suffered a Confederate invasion in 1862, leading to the Battle of Glorietta Pass involving a few thousand troops and a couple of hundred casualties.
Smaller Confederate units (dozens to hundreds) operated in California and Colorado, while what we would call "special operations" teams attacked infrastructure in Vermont and New York.
Another planned Confederate invasion into Illinois was cancelled in 1862 after Grant's victories at Forts Henry and Donelson in Kentucky made invading Illinois impossible.
Bottom line: it's just not controversial to point out that Confederate forces invaded and operated in every Union state or territory they could reach with as many forces as they had available.
Most fought battles, and all left trails of pillage and destruction.
Total casualties from all these invasions were tens of thousands, including thousands dead.
To those people, there was nothing "minor" about it.
Which of these battles might be classified as "major" is irrelevant to the fact that Confederates always did what they could with whatever they had.
Finally, again: all this data is readily available by googling for example, "US Civil War Kentucky" which produces a long list of articles on that state's role in the war.
IIRC, the two never met, there was never such an offer.
More important, Lincoln would have referred Davis to Congress for any negotiations and resulting compromises.
They didn't get any extra votes at the polls, but they did get extra Representatives in Congress and by extension, extra votes in the Electoral College.
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
Heavens no. Further, after the war of the insurrection, many whites picked cotton, if there was money in it.
A second point is that in the antebellum south, many slaves were white, and would be forced to labor just as, and along side the black slaves.
All ancient warrior tribes followed the same theory. Look at Moses and Joshua in their battles against the neighboring tribes it was ANNIHILATION. Whole tribes disappeared under assault by the Jews.
You are interpreting; as the Jews owned slaves that is fact. They were instructed how to deal with them and were not condemned for owning them.
Arrogance.
Did Davis send a commission to Lincoln? Yes.
Did the letter introducing the commissioners say anything about an offer? Why would it? Then he wouldn’t have needed to send the commissioners.Just because it is not mentioned in an introductory letter, does not mean the commissioners were not sent to make the offer.
Thanks for noting the correct pages. Feel free to correct the Wiki article.
If there was a plantation that had a large enough black population to justify its own representative, the plantation owner would have elected the representative. I just don’t think there was any plantation quite that big. Normally large plantations depended on small farms or towns around them to provide the white manpower to run slave patrols.
that was the thing about the slave power. They enslaved whites as well as blacks, and enforced duties upon the non-enslaved whites to support and enforce slavery.
We also keep in mind that the slave power invaded and looted Lawrence Kansas until they were opposed and defeated by one John Brown.
It was the universal distaste for Jeff Davis that led to the elevation of Lee as an icon soon after the war. Lee being safely dead, and Davis being cursed with a long life and a vivid imagination and thirst for vengeance, he occupied his time writing various fictions (The Rise of the Confederate Government being one).
If Davis was liked, they would not have needed the idolatry of Lee.
Perhaps you should associate with a better class of southerners.
For example: Seek out the ones that know that Hood burned Atlanta.
I submit that when you conflate the Jewish term for servant in the Bible with the practice of slavery in the antebellum south you may be making a theological error.
The Bible does not condemn slavery per see it is condemning man stealing which involved a raid into a peaceful community and forcibly taking individuals.
that is what you said.
Now compare that with what the confederate cavalry did during Lee’s invasion of PA.
we have descendants of southerners and descendants of northerners (and descendants of immigrants) in both sections too.
so why would reconstruction leave marks on one and not the other?
Thin skins?
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.
