Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
I just wish we didn't have to make it so personal and we could just have fun talking about the heros on both sides of the issue. For there were plenty of them.
Actually I think they do. If you read his speeches leading up to and including the Inaugural address he made clear his intention to retain ownership of federal property. Having done so in such a public manner he somewhat painted himself into a corner. He had little choice but to resupply Sumter, and probably hoped to do so peacefully.
Sure he did.
But that was the brilliance of it. For now when he called for 75,000 volunteers, they came a running, so outraged, that he would have a hard time keeping them in Washington!
I am not going to shortchange Lincoln's political savvy here. You don't have too either.
Lincoln knew that if he sailed into the harbor, he would get a war. He knew it. That knowledge must be evaluated in his actions as well.
My last was a balsa wood model of a Coast Guard 40 foot utility boat about 10 years ago. It took a long time and an enormous amount of effort. It was motorized and about 2.5’ in length.
It has never seen water, though. I am afraid all my work will end up in Davy Jones’ locker. Ha Ha
I piloted one of those things while I was in the CG in the early 70’s.
A very good question, Sir, and one I've honestly never contemplated.
--------
When I see opinions posted that so adamantly defend Lincoln and his administration's effort to change a slave's social position from property to person, I can't help but wonder if those same posters also defend the current administration's efforts to change a denizens social position from illegal to citizen.
Then again, some folks will never even see the parallel between the two.
Source, please. And I'm not talking about a source 25 years old either.
??
Don’t matter where they came from. They are still criminals who got a pass. This tells me alot about you. You assume that the south automatically defends its own. Projection, perhaps?
Of course you don't....unless you're aware of the fact that originally, it was a State who decided whether a denizen deserved citizenship, not the federal government.
The war stripped that power from the States under the auspices of freeing the slaves, yet everyone today screams 'no amnesty' and gets upset because the federal government exercises a power that the Union helped them obtain.
Guess you have to file it under "Unintended consequences".
But but.... I thought the north was fighting to free the slaves! That is just so disappointing. To learn that the north cared so little for the plight of the slaves. (sarc off.)If the north didn’t care about the slaves, then they need to quit calling the south racists. They were no different. In other words, the plight of the slaves meant very little to BOTH sides.
Gee, I wonder why it was changed to the Civil War. Could it be that it was learned that the north wasn't innocent after all?
Cute.
I think the pertinent question is “would America be better or worse off now if the South had won the War Between The States?”
Could have been. Could not have been. We don’t know. So, I don’t think it is the pertinent question. It is a very good “what if” question though.
That myth has already been debunked. Lincoln didn't particularly care about slavery. It was about preserving the Union.
Well, I don’t think it has been debunked. His administration and especially his party had strong and powerful elements within it that cared very much about changing the slave’s social position from property to person, and believed they were fighting to free the slaves and punish the slaveowners.
Jimmy Carter is not a solid son of the South. Neither is Bill Clinton. Both are Democrat Scalawags.
Don’t believe me? Ask them their opinion about the Confederacy. It’s the same as yours, so you should find it to be familiar.
As I noted earlier, neither North nor South has a monopoly on bad politicians, but the North elects more bad ones than the South. Furthermore, the bad ones we elect tend to be skillful liars (i.e. Carter & Bill Clinton) who are able to pose as something they aren’t to get elected and stay in office. Hillary lacks the ability to pose as a conservative, as Bill did for years, so she had to go to New York to run for the Senate.
Carter won the South in the 1976 presidential election, so you can legitimately blame us in part for his election. I say “in part” because Carter also did quite well up North. He was an unknown running as a conservative Democrat and a lot of folks got taken in.
Clinton, however, lost the South in both 1992 & 1996. Even though he was posing as a new type of Democrat we learned from our Carter mistake, so he lost most of the electoral votes down here. In contrast, he swept Yankeedom in both elections.
When another Democrat Scalawag, Al Gore, ran for president in 2000, We saw through him as well. Gore had earlier been elected to the House (1976) and Senate (1984) by running as an opponent of abortion and gun control, and a supporter of a strong national defense. He even sent his wife on the 700 Club to bemoan the moral decay in our society. But he revealed his phoniness and his true nature during his years as Clinton’s VP. The result? He lost every Southern state, including home state Tennessee, but swept Yankeedom.
I’ll repeat that. He swept Yankeedom. Ultra-leftist John Kerry also swept Yankeedom in 2004. And so will Hillary in 2008 if she’s the Democrat nominee.
If you’re a conservative as claimed, isn’t it a shame you’ll have to rely on Dixie as a firewall to prevent Hillary from becoming Commander-in-Chief?
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.