I don't make stuff up. I do real research.
ML/NJ
Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.
“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”
“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.
Pension records gleaned from the S.C. Department of History and Archives show no black Confederate soldiers received payment for combat service. And of the more than 300 blacks who did receive pensions after they were allowed in 1923, all served as body servants or cooks, the records show.
Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.
That repeal resulted in a handful of African-American units in states such as Virginia and Texas. But there were none in South Carolina, which prohibited African-Americans from carrying guns in the state’s service throughout the war for fear of insurrection, according to the archives.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
Possibly because the way you describe it is a complete fabrication?
As President he arrogated power to himself completely inconsistent with the Constitution.
In what way?
You see I went beyond the BS I was taught at my Long Island, NY, high school and read some history. It isn't pretty.
It doesn't show.
Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Lincoln's Republicans are today's Democrats and vice versa is basically ignorant of history.
And I'm not a Lost Causer. I'm just and Honest Yankee.
ML/NJ
One would think that the Yankees wouldn't have time to actually win the war what with them devoting so much time and energy to terrorizing.
The only people I've ever hear saying that have been liberal dhimmicrats. Just sayin....
The United States Constitution is silent on the proposition of Secession. That absence of enumerated power, in and of itself, neither prohibits nor allows secession. It just means that the framers chose not to address it in that document.
What is the prevailing theme within all of these questions? It's that there existed profound differences of opinion regarding the proposition. Americans held wildly disparate views on changing the status quo. That's why on matters of such import, intelligent and reasonable men seek the most effective methods of problem-solving.
So where is the best place to settle differences that involve all of the states?
A. The battlefield.
B. The courts.
C. The Congress.
D. The ballot box.
Actually, they are all acceptable options, and each has its place. So let me rephrase that last question: Of these choices, which represents the worst way to settle differences?
I don't make stuff up. I do real research.
ML/NJ
next time if you make a claim of some one like Lincoln doing something, be prepared to back up the claim. If you can support a statement with facts, good, that is what I want. Nothing more, nothing less.
War.
Excellent, I think we’re in agreement here, right central_va?
Intelligent and reasonable people run down the list of available remedies and exhaust them, one by one, before resorting to armed conflict.
LOL! I would imagine that men like David Herbert Donald and Ronald C. White and other Lincoln biographers did real research as well, and somehow their accounts of Lincoln's arrival in Washington bear no resemblance to your version. Why is that do you think?
Could it possibly be that unlike you they didn't rely on fake news?
Nonsense, there's nothing honest in the Lost Causer mythology which you seem to have swallowed hook, line & sinker.
As for Lincoln Republicans becoming today's Democrats, that's total rubbish and here's why:
From Day One of the Republic, in 1788, rural Northerners voted for the Constitution as Federalists, to Make America Great (1st time) as Whigs, to preserve the Union & set men free as Lincoln Republicans, to Talk Softly with Big Stick as TR Republicans, for Normal Peace & Prosperity with Harding, Coolidge & Eisenhower and for MAGA with Reagan & Trump.
Republicans then & now are predominantly rural, small town, small business, farmers, professionals, suburban, hard-working & religious, mostly Christians -- the old pro-America Whigs and original pro-Constitution Federalists.
By sharp contrast, today's urban Democrats started as the anti-Constitution anti-Federalists, became the Southern anti-Administration under Jefferson, then Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and Jacksonian Southern Democrats who ruled in Washington DC almost continuously from 1800 through secession in 1861.
From the time of Jefferson until roughly the 1960s, the Democrat base included Southern farmers, planters, slave-holders allied since Van Buren with Northern Big City immigrants, ethnic minorities and all takers.
Under "progressive" Southerners like Wilson, LBJ & Zippers Clinton and Northerners like FDR and OHB (if Hawaii is "northern") Democrats usually dominated US politics for the past 100+ years.
In that time they consistently opposed the Constitution and expanded Federal government, ultimately delivering the monstrosity -- the monster infested swamp -- we see today.
But "Oh", you say: "Democrats have changed sooooo much because they supported slavery and now support all minorities".
Noooo, Democrats from Day One supported special legal privileges for their own voters.
In 1860 it was the legal "right" to hold slaves as property for holders' income, today it's the "right" for takers to treat makers as property for takers' income.
Only their basic constituency changed -- from slave holders to slave descendants -- but Democrats today are they same they've always been.
So defending the Confederacy makes ml/nj an old Democrat who likes to play at being conservative or Republican, but still thinks & talks like Democrats defending special privileges for their own voters.
Democrats were the status quo conservatives and the Republicans were the wild eyed liberals of 19th century US politics. That is fact.
wouldn’t argue the point on that one.
To the degree the story is historical we can say: Lincoln did not expect an attack on "the train", but did expect an attempt to assassinate himself, with knives.
He could not believe that anyone would want to harm his family, and therefore the ruse was perfectly safe, in Lincoln's mind.
As for the mockery of Lincoln it causes, most curious that the allegedly "Republican" New York Times lead the charge in ridiculing Lincoln's actions.
Never trust the New York Times.
As for Lincoln's alleged disguise, it's most curious that our Civil War began with mocking Lincoln in a kilt and ended with mocking Jefferson Davis in a dress.
Lincoln disguised to enter Washington, DC.
Jefferson Davis disguised to escape Richmond, VA.:
Dhimmicrats have always been dhimmicrats - even your ancestors.
One other small point - if you believe the narrative delivered by the New York Times the plan was made with Mrs. Lincoln’s concurrence. There was no “abandonment” - that’s the stuff of idiots and morons.
Bull Snipe: "wouldn’t argue the point on that one."
But I certainly would, because it's absolutely not true in 1860.
In 1860 what the Republican platform called for was, in effect, a restoration of the status quo ante the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision effectively outlawing abolition everywhere.
Republicans wanted states to have authority to abolish their own slavery and Congress to abolish in territories.
That's no way "radical", it's what our Founders understood and intended in 1788.
In 1860 the radical new departure was Democrats insisting that slavery laws in one state must be honored by all states and territories.
Sure, after the Civil War -- 13th, 14th, 15th amendments -- you can well argue for Republican "progressivism", but Republicans themselves merely saw their actions as completing the American Revolution begun in 1776 where we claimed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
Republicans are the inheritors of the original pro-Constitution Federalists, the pro-economic growth Whigs and the pro-Union, pro-freedom Lincoln Republicans.
That's the real fact, Jack:
>
>>Every problem that we endure now with a powerful centralized government was spawned by Lincoln.
>Not to mention the snow in Georgia, South Carolina, and the freezing in Florida. I’m sure Lincoln is somehow responsible for that, too.
You’re an idiot. The US went from being a Union of Sovereign States to being an Empire of States subject to the federal government due to Lincoln. More than a few Northern States were upset about it, but the Feds had a huge army so no one could oppose them. We effectively changed the form of government and then retroactively passed constitutional amendments to make it legal.
It’s not surprising from a historical perspective. Historically Unions have a very short lifespan before a dominate member takes full control of the Union or the Union transforms into an empire. We’re seeing a similar process take place in Europe with Germany calling the shots for the other members. Once Germany has an EU army they’ll start using it to punish EU members who don’t want to obey.
Could it possibly be that unlike you they didn't rely on fake news?
You cannot possibly be so naïve. Victors get to write the history. Lincoln had to be made into an intellectual giant surpassing Washington and Jefferson in greatness. We're all taught, us Yankees at least, from an early age to worship Lincoln. Your authors want to be liked to so they continue to heap praise upon the Great Leader. They include events that could be said to reflect well upon Lincoln and leave others out.
I wonder what you think about the fawning "biographies" of the Clintons and of the Obamas.
My sources are mostly PRIMARY sources, that is things written by people who witnessed the events. When it comes to Lincoln I shy away from obvious Southern partisans, so while I have Pollard's Southern History of the War, I don't usually quote it as regards Lincoln. I feel the same way about current folks like DiLorenzo even though I'm not aware of any errors he might have made.
Finally, I never said anything that I recall about Lincoln's arrival in Washington. I have written here and elsewhere about events during his travel to Washington.
ML/NJ
We changed from a confederation of sovereign states with the passage of the US Constitution. That predates Lincoln by about 70 years.
You’re an idiot.
Speak for yourself.
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.
