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 ...
I notice Lincoln makes no qualifications between the northern and southern insurgents.
I’ve never seen a “historian” delve into the many questions this part of the Goon’s speech raises.
Oh jeebus this is rookie stuff! davis assumed (assumed being the operative term here) on February 9, 1861,
There is a difference between the provisional government leader in ‘61 and his inaugeration as the official president of the Confederacy in ‘62.
He did not have the authority to make treaties as the provisional head of state until after the elections in 1961, where he was acclaimed.
But, then you knew this, so why am I telling you what you already knew.
Again - almost a year after he launched his war. Don't you think that's a little late to be offering to pay for stolen goods or cover repudiated debt?
If you had actually read what I posted you will see that I did. So I will offer you the same opportunity. Read up the thread you will see that I have found the citation.
You need to recheck your dates. Davis was not in power in 1861.
I really should leave the more sharkish Freepers to attack this one, but I will let you off the hook. Jefferson Davis was inaugurated in late February of 1861. His own biography confirms this if you don't believe me.
So how can you say that they were there to offer to pay for stolen goods and repudiated debt?
Is Lincoln your God or something?
There were folks on both sides of the line that pushed the US into war. Southern interests and northern interests that supported a war against the confederacy. Lincoln was not a Radical republican. He was considered to be a moderate when elected, in that he made an effort to seek peace. For that matter, so was Davis, and many of the leaders of the confederacy.
Because there exist these things called “letters” and “minutes”. You may have heard of them. Just because they were not published to the public at large does not mean that they were not kept. There would be confederate copies and union copies of important documents.
In the made-up confed he had (and exercised) whatever “rights” fancied him. He wasn’t exactly known for obeying the law ;-)
“I really should leave the more sharkish Freepers to attack this one, but I will let you off the hook. Jefferson Davis was inaugurated in late February of 1861. His own biography confirms this if you don’t believe me.”
As a provisional leader of the Confederacy until such time as proper elections could be held. He was later acclaimed in November of ‘61, and elevated to the full presidency 4 year term and inaugerated in ‘62. According to the Confederate constitution, he did not have treaty-making powers until he was acclaimed.
Same as with Texas after the revolution btw - they appointed a provisional leader who had temporary authority. Later on, they would elect a president.
There are significant reasons why treaty-making powers would not be granted to a provisional leader, under a representative republic.
“In the made-up confed he had (and exercised) whatever “rights” fancied him. He wasn’t exactly known for obeying the law ;-)”
Contrary to what most may think, most of the leadership of the Confederacy publicly opposed secession.
I’ll admit it is fun for me to watch some of the regionalism that comes out in Civil War debates. I’m neither a northerner or southerner and was never raised with some of the regionalistic aspects of the war between the states. I guess that’s why I’m more of a nationalist which makes me absolutely insufferable during the Olympics.
Dude we are on the same side, read my post carefully.
And of course you can point us to where we can find these letters and minutes?
If you can’t see a difference between the South and the North today, then you aren’t looking hard enough. Without the South the USA would be the USSA by now. You can’t argue with that unless you want to sound like a complete idiot or Lincoln butt boy.
I was going to warn ya about taking sides but I see you’re already making friends ;-)
Sorry. I thought you were referring to Davis, not Lincoln.
Friendly fire events are unseemly, kindly look at who you are firing at before pulling the post trigger.
My apologies. Wouldn’t be the first time friendly fire cost us. ;)
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.