Posted on 04/24/2017 5:49:29 AM PDT by rktman
New Orleans officials removed the first of four prominent Confederate monuments early Monday, the latest Southern institution to sever itself from symbols viewed by many as a representation racism and white supremacy.
The first memorial to come down was the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.
Workers arrived to begin removing the statue, which commemorates whites who tried to topple a biracial post-Civil War government in New Orleans, around 1:25 a.m. in an attempt to avoid disruption from supporters who want the monuments to stay, some of whom city officials said have made death threats.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Well here, as but one example. I've read more and in more detail elsewhere.
As the Confederate government was formed, and as Abraham Lincoln took office, correspondence between the two entities continued. William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, ostensibly acted as mediator between the Confederate government and the Lincoln administration. Cooper suggests that Seward had presumed to speak on behalf of Lincoln when no such authority had been delegated to him. In all probability, whether intentional or not, Seward was advancing a delaying action on behalf of the administration while a plan of action was formulated. Correspondence between the Confederate government and Seward went on for several weeks with Seward continually stalling and assuring the South that he was in favor of avoiding hostilities. Although he assured the Confederates that Sumter would be evacuated, he deflected any attempts by their officials to ascertain specifics or details.
The only thing the prevented McClellan from winning against the Goon in the 1864 election was the fall of Atlanta. That single event changed EVERYTHING for both Northerners and Southerners. The impact of the fall of Atlanta is not given enough historical emphasis. Even more so than Vicksburg. It was a watershed event.
Yeah. It was the defining moment the South lost the war.
It is like in a football game late in the third quarter when you realize that the other team just can’t score enough points to win but there is still another quarter to play.
What is your point here? I'm trying to fathom what you are getting at. Yes, of course, AFTER the Union had repeatedly invaded the South, the Confederates eventually got around to invading them back.
Are you arguing that because the South invaded in 1862 that this justifies the North invading in 1861?
'Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.'
Mark Twain - The greatest barrier to the truth is to believe you already have it.
Chuck Missler -
I wonder why we are burning the books and destroying history, odd.
Here’s what is really odd about these Lincoln Lovers. They actually think that the South was an existential threat to the North. They have this preposterous notion that the South could have militarily beaten the North. It is crazy. The South’s strategy was statement followed by a negotiated peace. They use the PA and KY invasions as some kind of reason to believe that the South was going to conquer and occupy the North! Like I said it’s crazy what these people think.
...a "negotiated peace" which included preserving the institution of slavery?
A negotiated peace where by the North stops the war, stops invading and lets the CSA exist.
...lets the CSA exist with slavery intact. Got it.
If you attempt to judge the people of the mid-nineteenth century by 21st century standards then you are going to get a very distorted view of history. Lincoln had racist views, Grand Wizard KKK racist views.
They think what they need to think to believe that their side did the right thing. They are like the Germans who refused to believe the Holocaust. They can't wrap their minds around the truth of it.
They can't accept the notion that they were the bad guys.
Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Delaware were Union states. They didn't need to negotiate to preserve slavery, the Union merely recognized that these states had that right.
Look, you can keep talking "Slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery... but you aren't going to change the truth of the matter that the Union kept slavery for "Four Score and Seven Years", plus another eight months after it was abolished in the South.
We know why you push the slavery dodge, because without it you don't have a good reason to invade other people's land and murder 750,000 men doing it.
The bloodshed on the hands of the Union government demands an explanation, so one has been provided by the Union government. It is the false claim of a war for freedom, when in fact it was the very opposite of that.
It was a war to establish a larger slavery by making the states Vassals of Washington and it's powerful wealthy allies in the North East.
Same problem we face today.
The independence minded Brits were never subjected to the ongoing insults that were showered on the Southern States by some agitators during the 1840s & 1850s. But that does not change the right of any people to seek to chart their own destiny--or to regain a former independence.
You need to re-read post 94. He was not vilifying the CSA at all.
Just like the Union. Have you got that? Do you "get it" that the UNION KEPT SLAVERY LONGER THAN THE SOUTH?
Stop talking to us about how immoral it is until you recognize that it was not so immoral that they should get rid of it in Maryland or Kentucky or Missouri or Delaware.
If you hate slavery so much, you should thank the South, because if they hadn't seceded, Slavery would have continued another 50 years or so.
Without the economic war against the South, they never would have had the excuse to evaporate 4.5 billion dollars worth of Southern capital under the pretense of morality.
My #96 was simply a response to your attribution of “bad,” to the seceding States. I realize that there is much wisdom in your other posts.
I think you are replying to me by mistake. I am not vilifying the motives of the Confederate States. I have long argued that they had a right to leave the Union if they so wished. The Declaration of Independence outlines this as a fundamental human right, and this is a position that I have come to agree with.
The independence minded Brits were never subjected to the ongoing insults that were showered on the Southern States by some agitators during the 1840s & 1850s. But that does not change the right of any people to seek to chart their own destiny--or to regain a former independence.
I've read some of it. Elements in the North absolutely detested the Southerners, and not just because of slavery, though there was plenty of puritan intolerance vented on that.
A lot of people may not notice, but everyone in "flyover country" is still being talked down to by our moral superiors in New York. (and Los Angeles)
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.