Posted on 05/16/2015 5:12:04 AM PDT by OttawaFreeper
The North rejoiced: The rebellion had been put down and the Union saved. But Northerners also breathed a sigh of relief. Many had feared that the Confederacy would not accept defeat, but instead would continue the struggle by means of guerrilla warfare. Indeed, Lee’s chief of artillery, E. Porter Alexander, had suggested this option before Lee’s surrender. The Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, also wished to continue the war in this manner. But Lee rejected the guerrilla option in favor of unifying the country. And General Joseph Johnston defied Davis’s orders to continue hostilities, instead surrendering his force to William Tecumseh Sherman at Durham Station in North Carolina in order to “save the people [and] spare the blood of the army.” But in reality, the war was not over. It would continue for nearly another decade and a half in the form of Reconstruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Okay, I did. It renders it nonsensical. You have a weird idea regarding what is "fun."
What we're talking about, though, in the context of the Voting Rights Act, is the fact that the power of state government was being used to deny a class of people a voice in their government. Under the principles of the Declaration of Independence that you like to cite, how should blacks have responded to this?
I have no objections for protection for voters, but that act went beyond that. It imposed upon owners of businesses the new Federal morality, whether they liked it or not.
You see, i'm the sort of fellow that doesn't think being an @$$hole should be against the law. (You're welcome.) And I believe that the market and society in general would eventually ostracize and punish businesses that practiced discrimination. I believe that forcing it down people's throats by Federally imposed law, is a bad way to solve the problem. It destroys too many principles, and even now has been turned from a worthy cause (ending discrimination against Blacks, Indians, etc) to forcing businesses to cater to Homosexuals, even if it goes against their conscious or religion.
It became a tool, like the patriot act, to punish people who don't march in lockstep with the government decided morality. In other words, the opinions of High Society in New York.
It *IS*, in fact, how we got the current reigning Ignoramus supreme. He was hired for no other reason than that he was Black. His qualifications are absurd, his background ranges from the pathetic to the evil, he has never accomplished anything in his life himself, and even owes his very education to the fact that he is the beneficiary of this Liberal social experiment.
Once the government mandates the concept of "Affirmative Action", many of the sheeple just jump in lockstep and push it even farther. The Government, by imposing this morality, Normalized the idea of unqualified people being put into positions for which they are ill suited. Again, that's how O'dumbo got his current gig. Had he been white, he would be a nobody. He'd probably be selling cars or something. As his Grandfather (whom he most resembles, and from whom he probably got his charm) was a furniture salesman.
So a law allowing black people to vote is "imposing morality"? Really?
The law which allowed black people to vote was the 14th amendment. The shame is that it took so long for people to finally start enforcing it, but you are focusing only on that one aspect of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Read up on it. It goes *WAY* beyond that. From what I can see, it crosses a constitutional line.
Barry Goldwater (whom I never liked, by the way, because I think Libertarians suck in general) was right to take a principled stand against it. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was basically an enabling act for Federal abuse. One of many more such to come.
Not really interested in debating the merits of this specific plan. This is what he told me. I assume if the Military people thought it would work, then it might have worked. In any case, my friend seemed to think it would have worked, but I myself don't really know.
You said earlier that time was on the side of the Confederates (or words to that effect), that if Lincoln did nothing the Confederacy would be a reality. Lincoln, from many indications, thought time was on his side, that if the stand-off continued Southerners would come to their senses. He may have been wrong. He probably was wrong. But if his understanding of the situation was that time was on his side, he didn't *NEED* the other side to fire first.
I think time was on the Confederate's side. I think the longer they went about their affairs peaceably, the more ingrained and accepted would become the break from the Union. Of course, part of the problem with analyzing what happened years ago is that we have the advantage of hindsight. We *KNOW* what did happen, but could the people there at the time have seen the same things we see today? I doubt it.
I think time was on the Confederate's side, but perhaps they couldn't actually see this, just as you suggested.
What is obvious to me is the fact that both sides woefully underestimated the other side's resolve. I think Lincoln believed his invasion force would make quick work of the trouble makers, and put an end to this silly secession nonsense.
I think he failed to realize just how reactionary people would be at realizing they were being invaded for the purpose of subjugation. I think his gift for reading people failed him here. There is something about people coming on to your land to force you to do something against your will that revs up the fighting spirit. I think causes which may or may not have a lot of public support will suddenly acquire galvanized public support if people feel as if something threatens them, and nothing can be more threatening to people than the idea that someone has sent soldiers at you to bend you to their will.
I think the Confederates failed to realize that humiliating Lincoln was a very foolish thing to do, especially when you look at the relative weights between the population under his command and that of their own. In their efforts to humble him, they failed to reckon with his fighting spirit, which was demonstrably stronger than that of any ordinary man. Lincoln was not some effeminate dandy. He was a rough hewn man's man who grew up fighting. They should have better taken his measure before cornering him.
Color me skeptical. A lot of people will tell you they believed Lincoln was wonderful until they read some revisionist book that "opened their eyes." A lot of those people just aren't telling the truth. They liked those revisionist books because they confirmed what they'd heard years before.
I think Lincoln was both Angel and Demon. He exists in a quantum state of superposition, and what aspect of him appears depends a lot on who is opening the box.
Anyways, I'm surprised you didn't ask me about the letter. Wouldn't looking for it be the first thing you would do if you had heard such a story?
You are a Zampolit. Why should I try to argue with you?
I am directed by the President of the United States to notify [you] to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in provisions, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice or in case of an attack upon the fort.
Doesn't seem particularly insulting or provocative. A little brusque maybe, but to the point. The letter or note, though, was simply there to confirm and establish the message that the emissary was to convey. The piece of paper wasn't as important as the emissary's diplomatic skill in conveying the message. It would have been foolish for anyone to take offense.
If you believe that then you are even stupider than I previously stated.
No, the other one.
Zampolit, Fanatic, what’s the difference? It all works out the same. You can’t be reasoned with.
That’s rich. Neither can you. What’s your point?
I am a convert. I used to be of your religion, and then I was rudely awakened by ideas that didn't fit.
What’s your point?
That is my point. There is no point in arguing with you. At least about this topic anyway.
:)
You are gullible and easily persuaded from one notion to another. You weren’t reasoned into the first position and it’s obvious that you weren’t reasoned into your current position.
Reconstruction is here now. People jn the north took control of the money and enrich their friends to this day. That was the main thing about the war.In this modern era when will a southerner be nominated by the Gop ? The Bush family are NE bluebloods. This govt has bad leadership to this day ,,which was brought about by that war. We are all suffering for it.
I wholeheartedly agree.Lincolns’ assassination was the worst possible thing that could have happened at that period in time.IMHO.
If what I read is correct, Connecticut didn’t formally outlaw slavery until 1849. Only 12 years before the war commenced.
I believe you’re right sir.Hell, I wasn’t around then so I don’t know whom I would have sided with. There were Southern guys fighting for the North and vice versa.All I know is that Lee was an excellent soldier and a very well liked guy.
He was offered some very lucrative positions and business endorsements from North and South alike. He WASN’T and isn’t just a Southern Hero, he’s an AMERICAN HERO IMHO.
Lincoln IMHO was the most shrewd guy to ever sit in the White House. However, I am of the opinion that slavery would have died out on it’s own.Had the Abolitionist practiced patience, I sincerely believe the Civil War could have been avoided.
Lincoln was also a polarizing figure; very controversial. His war was devastating - 600,000 dead; nearly two percent of the nation's 31 million population.
This would be equivalent of the United States losing 6 million dead in a 2015 war. Not to mention the near total devastation of 11 states - cities, transportation infrastructure, homes, farms, and livestock.
Many say it was worth it because only a strong, robust federal government can ensure “a standard toeboard shall be 4 inches nominal in vertical height from its top edge to the level of the floor, platform, runway, or ramp. It shall be securely fastened in place and with not more than 1/4-inch clearance above floor level.”
Arguably we got our money's worth.
CT actually enacted gradual emancipation before it ratified the Constitution.
Here’s a really interesting timeline.
http://www.fortunestory.org/resources/timeline.asp
Interestingly, in 1686 the killing of a slave was made a capital crime.
Maryland was still a slave state until the war was over. Nowadays everyone will tell you the war was fought to end slavery, but in fact it wasn't.
People say that it was because there had to be SOME REASON why all those people died. Slavery was the ex post facto reason seized upon to justify the carnage.
This echos my thinking as well. The ironic thing is that the primary trigger which initiated the Abolitionist movements in the United States was the Declaration of Independence and it's statement that "all men are created equal..."
The Declaration kick started the whole thing.
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.