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 ...
Pellagra will do that.
That was during a war as I recall. My whole point is that “Modern Thinking” is against slavery. To intellectually impose today’s democratic prejudices on the people of different times and places is what is called anachronism. Anachronism is an error in thought. Look at the attitude expressed toward the black by Aunt Polly’s sister in “Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain.
I think it's important to understand this whole "how many owned slaves" question realistically.
The usual answer is "very few owned a lot of slaves", overall in 1860 only 5% of eight million Southern whites owned slaves, and of those only a few thousands owned 100 slaves or more.
But if you ask, "how many whites lived in slave-holding families?" -- then the answer is quite different, and needs to be understood from the perspective of Deep South compared to Upper South and Border States.
Seven states of the Deep South (South Carolina to Texas) included 2.5 million whites with 2.3 million slaves.
Whites lived in 677,000 families of which 181,000 owned slaves = 27% of white families owned an average of 13 slaves in the Deep South.
Four Upper South states (Virginia to Arkansas) included 2.9 million whites with 1.2 million slaves.
Whites lived in 668,000 families of whom 133,000 owned slaves = 20% of white families owned an average of 9 slaves in the Upper South.
Four Border States (Delaware to Missouri) included 2.7 million whites with 427,000 slaves.
Whites lived in 565,000 families of whom 77,335 owned slaves = 14% of white families owned an average of 6 slaves in the Border States.
So, overall the 1860 average is 21% of 1.9 million Southern white families owned on average 10 slaves each.
Yes, these numbers are somewhat different than I've posted before and represent corrections.
The biggest surprise is to learn that Deep South (27%) and Upper South (20%) had somewhat fewer slave-holder families than I'd calculated before.
Border States at 14% overall are slightly higher, ranging from 3% in Delaware to 11% in Maryand & Missouri to 19% in Kentucky.
The numbers help tell the story of why the Confederacy was more successful persuading Deep and Upper South states to join it, than it was in Border States.
So it is your assertion that the southern cavalry didn’t have access to the Bible?
There are lots of things that Moses allowed that weren’t part of God’s original intent for mankind. Like divorce, for example. Jesus tells us in the gospels that Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. But He also said that from the beginning that wasn’t what God intended.
Yes, there are rules laid out for slaveholders in the law of Moses. There is even a book in the New Testament telling slaves and slaveholders how they should behave.
But God intended men to be free. Period.
To enslave a man is to violate the Golden Rule in one of the worst ways possible.
In early 1861, neither outgoing Democrat President Buchanan nor incoming Republican Lincoln ever met directly with Confederate representatives.
In this particular case, Davis' emissaries didn't meet either Lincoln or Secretary of State Seward.
Instead they met a southern-born US Supreme Court Justice who was soon to himself join the Confederacy.
This justice talked to Seward, who lead him to believe than Lincoln planned to surrender Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
Lincoln's view, as he stated publicly, was that any instructions to him regarding secession must come from Congress, and that's who Davis' emissaries should address.
There's no record of offers of payment for any seized Federal properties, and the whole atmosphere was one of explicit threat of violence -- if Lincoln did not surrender Fort Sumter, it would be seized by military assault.
The key issue here is: what is the proper Constitutional method to secede, and Lincoln's answer then, as is ours today, was -- constitutional secession must be authorized by Congress.
“there was never such an offer.”
You’re very wrong about this. They did meet, and he did make this offer prior to the war. Lincoln refused.
Go read some books on the civil war, and get back to us when you’re properly informed.
*sigh*
There’s a difference between:
All blue states are northern and,
All northern states voted for Obama.
Late in February 1862, just after his inaugeration.
Please show a link to the “deal” you’ve been referring to. Thanks.
“battles might be classified as “major” is irrelevant”
It’s not irrelevant that some battles are major and some are not. All battles with more casulties than First Manassas is an objective standard.
There is a similarity as well: both are false.
So you’re going to continue the lie to cover your butt. :)
It was constitutional to secede. Lincoln chose to declare war on the south when peace was possible, and refuse to permit the South to leave.
Hahahaha, so evidence is false when it contradicts you!
Wow. Ok. :)
I think we’re about done here since you’re not even willing to accept evidence anymore.
RTFT
Are you this patently dishonest in all of your dealings? I’d ask if you are a used car salesman but that would be disparaging to used car salesmen everywhere...
You have yet to present evidence - right or wrong.
Read The Fricken Thread.
No thanks - I'd rather read this thread. ;-)
I have read the thread - with keen interest. You haven’t hesitated to recite the Lost Cause Loser catechism but you have noticeably failed to buttress any of your spew with anything approaching unimpeachable evidence.
In other words - you persist in talking out your kazoo.
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.