Death is Mercy to Secessionists

Abbeville Institute ^ | Mar 21, 2016 | Bernard Thuersam

[DiogenesLamp]

Too many of us have been spoon fed the false legend that Lincoln was a god-fearing conservative. Well maybe he was god-fearing? Conservative however - hardly....

He was not even god-fearing. He was in fact an Atheist in his early days. Although he may have acquired some respect for Christianity in his later life, there is sufficient evidence out there to indicate he eschewed it during his younger years.

https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-religion-christian-atheist

[rockrr]

He was in fact an Atheist in his early days.

There you go again. You couldn't tell the truth if someone was to beat it out of you. And, as if to illustrate what an idiot you are, your proffered "evidence" doesn't even agree with you.

"“That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true,” he responded in a handbill; “but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.”"

Taking up space in a church does not make one a believer. Mouthing scripture does not make one spiritual. Presupposing to know what is in ones heart is the height (depth?) of arrogance. That Lincoln was reticent to speak of organized religion does not indict him. That he fails to meet your definitions does not impress me.

Go back to ranting about tariffs - at least there the turd you've been polishing has a sheen.

[DiogenesLamp]

"“That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true,” he responded in a handbill; “but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.”"

There is nothing in that statement which contradicts the claim that he is an atheist.

An atheist can exist without denying the truth of the scriptures. All that is required to be an atheist is to not believe them.

An atheist can also exist without denigrating religion. That is unusual, but not impossible.

If one is inclined, one can read his statement as more of his clever lawyer talk to deny something without actually denying it.

[elbook]

“Let me introduce you to the “Corwin Amendment.”

Wonderful, but did it pass? Could it pass as an Amendment which takes alot of states voting - not just politicials in DC.

The way politics was going in the US, Slavery was going away eventually and those rich slaveowners would be out of their cashcow someday... And they WOULD NOT HAVE THAT

[DiogenesLamp]

Wonderful, but did it pass?

It passed the House and Senate when both were totally dominated by the Northern states.

The point here is that if the South had remained in the Union, they would have handed it permanent slavery on a silver platter.

Could it pass as an Amendment which takes alot of states voting - not just politicials in DC.

It was ratified by five northern states. Seward assured everyone that New York would also ratify it. If you add to this number, the 16 slave states in the Union, you have 21 states passing it while the Union consisted of 33 states.

24/33 = 72%. If Seward came through on his promise, New York would make 25 states, which puts the total at over 3/4ths.

So yes, the Corwin amendment had a very real chance of passing and becoming the 13th amendment. If they thought it would have kept the South in the Union, the powers that be in the North would have insured that it passed.

The way politics was going in the US, Slavery was going away eventually and those rich slaveowners would be out of their cashcow someday... And they WOULD NOT HAVE THAT

Well that's a good theory, but as i've pointed out above, if the South had taken the deal the North offered, slavery would have become virtually permanent.

You may not know about this, but the North was making a hell of a lot of money from Southern slavery. Out of every dollar produced by the South exporting goods to Europe, New York and Washington DC was getting 60% of it. They were making more money off of slavery than were the people who actually ran it.

Why do you suppose the North was so dead set on letting go of those southern states? Do you think they just woke up one day and said "Oh my God! There is slavery in the South, and we have to stamp it out!"

Nope. What got them upset is the fact that the money they were making from the South was about to stop, because the South was about to start trading directly with Europe without going through New York and Washington DC. Furthermore, the South was going to be importing European goods that would compete with Northern manufactures for markets in the South and the Midwest, and so they were also going to lose a ton of money if that happened.

Give the South permanent slavery and keep the money? Yeah, that's what they tried to do.

[BroJoeK]

I see the good guys here are outnumbered by pro-Confederates, what is it, two to one, or four to one?
And here I am again tied down... {sigh}

Well... first, before I'd get too deep into anti-Sherman condemnations, I'd want to double check if A) the quote is 100% accurate, since doctored quotes are stock in trade for some propagandists.

And B) is the context presented correctly?

Then, assuming the quote is reasonably valid, we might next notice that Sherman did correctly identify large slaveholders as the rebellion's root cause, and here speculates that replacing them with hard working small farmers, such as found elsewhere in the U.S., would prevent future rebellions.

So obviously, Sherman never read Lost Causer theses that slavery was really just the excuse, not the real cause for Secession.
As for Sherman's opinions on constitutionality of secession, Unionists have always said Confederates had no unilateral "right to secede" or to start & declare war against the USA.

And to the current location of Sherman's soul, we might remember that one of his sons became a Catholic priest and may have prayed for special intercession on his Old Man's behalf.

[BroJoeK]

I don't have time right now for a lengthy response to DiogenesLamp's post, so will only note first, that the reason Congress offered up Corwin is because that's what everybody in Congress thought Secessionists wanted, think of that.
Nobody then imagined that offering lower tariffs or more favorable navigation laws would win back the South.

Second, the reason most secessionists refused to respond to Corwin was because they already had a much better deal, indeed an ironclad guarantee, in the Confederate constitution.
Why go for a half-hearted measure like Corwin, when you could have the real deal from Confederates?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I would never dare say that anyone was in hell for certain sure. Some murderers -- perhaps, many a murderer ---has received the mercy of being given the strength to repent, even at the last minute.

"Betwixt the stirrup and the ground,
Mercy I asked, mercy I found."

[elbook]

I recall hearing that the rich people of the South also owed Northern banks $200 million and that they (or some) saw Secession as a way to nullify those debts.

I’m not sure how much something like that may have also fit into the motives.

[katana]

“Lord, lead us not into temptation”. That must include the temptation to jump into nasty spirited debates on the topics of Religion (some here seem to want a reignition of The 30 Years War) and the (very un-) Civil War. “Tied down” is a great way to describe the feeling of mud gripping our feet as people rage at each other. People who agree on so much else. Wish we could discuss things, even or especially when we sincerely disagree, without insult and invective. Those should be saved for the truly deserving lurking in the halls of government, media, and academia.

[Nellie Wilkerson]

One nice thing in the mountains and oceans of fire, suffering and death he brought down upon the Southern people? Doesn't destroy anything for me. He was indeed a monster. Killing seemed to suit him, and made him an uncivilized savage.

Hdqrs. Military Division of the Mississippi,
In the Field, Rome, Ga., October 29, 1864
Brigadier-General Watkins, Calhoun, Ga.:

Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired on from Resaca to Kingston?

W.T. Sherman,
Major-General, Commanding.

________

Calhoun, October 30, 1864
Major-General Sherman:

My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned. Watkins is not here, but I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable, if necessary.

E.M. McCook,
Brigadier-General

SOURCE: Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, United States Government, Series I, Volume XXXIX, Part III, p. 494

Not "Kill whoever fired on the trains," but "known secessionists." Civilians. Kill a few "at random." Burn their houses so their families will have no place to live.

Monster.

[Nellie Wilkerson]

So obviously, Sherman never read Lost Causer theses that slavery was really just the excuse, not the real cause for Secession.

As for Sherman's opinions on constitutionality of secession, Unionists have always said Confederates had no unilateral "right to secede" or to start & declare war against the USA.

Slavery was indeed the major cause of secession (though there were others. The upper Southern states seceded because Lincoln tried to force them to send troops to invade the seceded states). But secession is not war, and the reasons for each are different. The South fought because it was militarily invaded. The union made war on the South, not the other way around. Ten thousand-plus battles, from minor skirmishes to days long heavy combat, and virtually all of them fought on Southern soil.

For the union, the purpose of the war was not ending slavery, preserving the union or nullifying the concept of secession ... it was to grind the South underfoot, to lay it waste, to dehumanize Southerners and make them the nation's trash people as far into the future as the eye could see.

Secession was not a right, it was a power; a power reserved to the states and the people:

The powers prohibited to the states are identified in Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution. Secession is not among them, so it is not prohibited.

The power to prohibit secession is not listed among the powers delegated to the United States.

The 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

Don't confuse Confederates with the colonial patriots, who were indeed traitors. The difference was the type of government each sought to separate from. The crown legitimately owned the colonies and declaring independence was open treason and rebellion. The feds did not own the states (they do now); states had voluntarily entered into a voluntary union and reserved the power to voluntarily leave it.

Secession is a power reserved to the states and the people. Only in the Victor Fables does it become "unconstitutional."

Sherman's hatred for secessionists was psychotic.

[Nellie Wilkerson]

A history buff explained this to me once -- a lot of those banks held title to slaves. Growing cotton was a crap shoot. Many planters had to mortgage everything of value that they had -- including slaves -- every season just to put in a crop and northern banks were the only entities who could provide the money. One bad season -- drought, flood, whatever -- and a planter could lose everything. The banks would sell the slaves to someone else, and they would mortgage them to put in a crop.

I don't know how much my history buff friend had actually researched about this, but it would be fascinating to find out how many banks actually owned how many slaves when the war broke out.

There weren't very many rich people in the South at that time. Even most of the 379,597 slaveholders were not rich.

[x]

Y'all p_____d him off. It's what Lost Causers do. And he reacted accordingly. In a letter that doesn't reflect how he felt before or after the war.

I would really look closer into the Abbeville Institute. Maybe it's a Soros front designed to make the rest of the country really hate you Confederate sympathizers. It's working so far.

[BroJoeK]

elbook: "I recall hearing that the rich people of the South also owed Northern banks $200 million and that they (or some) saw Secession as a way to nullify those debts."

I think that's right and Confederate governments did quickly outlaw debt payments to Union banks.

But it was not among the reasons given in any Reasons for Secession document.
How then can we claim it was a "real reason" as opposed to officially stated reasons?
I think no honorable person would openly admit scheming to renounce their debts, but if that were the consequence of a Union assault on the very basis of their economic prosperity (slavery), well... then... so be it.

So put yourself in the shoes of a Southern planter who owes money to Union banks for purchase of your land, equipment & slaves.
You well intend to honorably pay your debts, but what if now, those same Northerners who loaned you money are now voting for "Black Republicans" who wish to abolish slavery and thus the basics of your economic way of life?

But it began with the perceived assault on slavery, the economic consequences followed.

[BroJoeK]

Nellie Wilkerson: "...secession is not war, and the reasons for each are different.
The South fought because it was militarily invaded."

Well... actually Confederates began seizing Union properties (forts, ships, arsenals, mints), threatening Union officials, firing on Union ships, etc., immediately after first declaring secession on December 20, 1860.
Democrat President Buchanan offered no serious response, but did refuse to surrender Fort Sumter without a fight.
When President Lincoln then tried to resupply Sumter, Jefferson Davis ordered it assaulted, "reduced" and forced to surrender.
Thus, war was on.

There was no Union "invasion" of Confederate states until long after Confederates formally declared war against the United States, May 6, 1861.

Nellie Wilkerson: "The union made war on the South, not the other way around.
Ten thousand-plus battles, from minor skirmishes to days long heavy combat, and virtually all of them fought on Southern soil."

Well... actually, in 1861 there were far more battles fought in Union states than Confederate states, and more Confederate soldiers died in Union states that year.
By mid-1862 the numbers of battles & deaths were roughly equal, Union & Confederacy, and from that point on, the war was fought mostly in Confederate states.

However, as late as the fall of 1864 there were still Confederates fighting in Union states from Missouri to Maryland.

Nellie Wilkerson: "For the union, the purpose of the war was not ending slavery, preserving the union or nullifying the concept of secession ... it was to grind the South underfoot, to lay it waste, to dehumanize Southerners and make them the nation's trash people as far into the future as the eye could see."

Complete nonsense.
If Southern slaveholders felt like "trash people" in 1865, they soon enough got over it, using leverage from the election of 1876 to get Union troops withdrawn from the South, end Republican Reconstruction and impose the Democrats' Black Laws, Jim Crow and KKK terrorists -- effectively nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments for the next 100 years.

Nellie Wilkerson: "Secession was not a right, it was a power; a power reserved to the states and the people: "

No state in 1788 asserted an unlimited "right of secession".
A few states did tie potential disunion to necessity, injustice or oppression.
None of those conditions existed in November 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began organizing to declare secession.

Nellie Wilkerson: "The feds did not own the states (they do now); states had voluntarily entered into a voluntary union and reserved the power to voluntarily leave it."

Both Democrat President Buchanan and Republican President Lincoln recognized that secession alone was not cause for Civil War, and neither moved to impose military control over seceding states, until...
Until Jefferson Davis ordered war to begin at Fort Sumter and the Confederacy formally declared war against the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Then war was on and all the other issues came into play.

Nellie Wilkerson: "Sherman's hatred for secessionists was psychotic."

Sherman was criticized by radical Republicans for granting surrender terms they considered too lenient.
Confederate soldiers & civilians deserve our understanding & sympathy, Confederate leaders, not so much.

[OIFVeteran]

If conservative means holding up the founders original intent then he(and the republican party)was conservative. Most founding fathers thought they had put slavery onto the path of extinction. They wanted to see slavery ended.

“It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.” - George Washington Letter to John Mercer, September 9, 1786

“I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery.”
- George Washington: letter to Lawrence Lewis, August 4, 1797

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in... abhorrence.”
John Adams: letter to Evans, June 8, 1819

“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as we as justice and humanity, in my opinion loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”
-John Jay: to R. Lushington - March 15, 1786

“Would any one believe that I am master of slaves by my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not — I cannot justify it, however culpable my conduct. I will so far pay my devoir to Virtue, as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and to lament my want of conformity to them. I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be afforded to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we cam do, is to improve it, if It happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot, and an abhorrence of Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished-for reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity. It is the furthest advancement we can make toward justice. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our religion, to show that it is at variance with that law which warrants Slavery.”
-Patrick Henry letter to John Alsop Jan13, 1773

From the Republican Party Platform of 1860.

7.That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8.That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

The Republican party then, as now, was the conservative party.

[mostly_lies]

Not even Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot were UTTER monsters. There are shreds of humanity and compassion that shine through in the most depraved men.

Sherman was one of those depraved men, though. He was a monster and not a hero. I am thankful that men are not the complete devils they may appear to be in some circumstances.

His acceptance of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox was a bright spot in a nasty nasty personal history.

Yes, I do plan to p*ss on his grave if I get a chance. No less of a murdering butcher than Mengistu, Castro, or Idi Amin.

[mostly_lies]

“hahahahah!!! The Abbeville institute is meticulous in its research and citing of sources?”

I know some of the guys in Abbeville. The answer is “yes”

Next question?

[Desparado]

Agree. As one born and raised in New England states, now living in Tennessee; my favorite reply when asked is “I wasn’t born here, but I moved here as soon as I could!