Posted on 11/20/2018 1:49:02 PM PST by Mariner
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith smilingly posed for a photo in 2014 while wearing a Confederate cap and holding a rifle, then put the image on her Facebook page with the words "Mississippi history at its best!"
That image, taken at a Mississippi museum, resurfaced Tuesday as AT&T, Leidos and Walmart joined two other companies, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific, in asking Hyde-Smith, a Republican, to return campaign contributions because of controversy over her recent jest about being willing to attend a public "hanging."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
To the South the entire debacle was to support Slavery.
To the North it was entirely about the preservation of the Union.
Seizure of federal property is an act of war. Arsenals all over the South were raided for arms, another act of war.
The Idiot Cabal managed to maneuver Lincoln (against his desire) into having to protect federal property and Sumter was federal property deeded to the feds by the State of South Carolina. Thus, he had no choice but to use military means.
Seizure of federal property is an act of war. Arsenals all over the South were raided for arms, another act of war.
The Idiot Cabal managed to maneuver Lincoln (against his desire) into having to protect federal property and Sumter was federal property deeded to the feds by the State of South Carolina. Thus, he had no choice but to use military means.
Now it is getting hilarious.
The preservation of slavery in the US during the Revolution doesn't make the Founders evil. It makes them complex; not all wanted slavery, but at the time they were also unable to abolish it.
Remember that George III had no higher moral ground than Lincoln in his emancipation of slaves—it was about economically harming a rebellious political faction, and nothing more. Slave trading was legal in the British Empire until 1807, and slavery was not abolished in most of the Empire until 1834.(Wikipedia)
History will likewise judge the ignorance and/or inaction of our own era's handling of certain issues.
If I didn't know the Senator was at a Jefferson Davis museum, I wouldn't automatically assume she was wearing a CSA hat.
Objectively Union actions were definitely affecting slavery.
Military actions deep inside the South caused many more to runaway to the Union army. The actual numbers of Runaways prior to that were small. Often when one was captured the crowd which gathered bought him from his owner and freed him.
There was a many-sided coalition supporting the War. Lincoln’s innate ability deftly allowed him to keep it together.
Preserving the greatest Union in history was worth the bloodshed.
And there is no “side” one side won and the other side lost.
Incorrect. Some Republican leaders in Delaware were slave owners. Not many, but more than one.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the second half of your sentence is true then wouldn't Lincoln have to support the abolition of slavery in order to accomplish it?
There is no doubt that the South fought the War to preserve slavery. You get into the realm of quacks and fanatics to believe any other reason was significant.
It’s fear of the North’s growing power led to the conclusion that already a minority it would become even more so and decided to fight.
George Washington’s Farewell Address warned of the designing men who would urge secession. That was the main point of the address.
Abolition would have eventually become the goal of the Union and that would be irresistible. With enough added states there could have been a Constitutional Amendment outlawing it.
Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby, Harry Byrd.
How was slavery endangered by remaining in the Union? If you are going to make such a claim, I expect you to support it.
I've seen this claim numerous times, but when people are asked to point out how slavery was going to be in danger, they say, "Uh, if it didn't expand it would cease to exist!" as if this claim were some how self evidently true, which it isn't.
I've shown up thread that expanding it was impossible, even if everyone agreed to it. The land into which it would have to expand, wouldn't support it.
So how was the South fighting a war to preserve something that wasn't really in any danger? Riddle me that.
And pray tell, what good were British deeds after the Colonies declared independence?
King George III owned all the colonies. Were we supposed to respect his claims to the land because he had papers that said it was his?
Byrd became an Independent, never turned Republican.
Well I agree with both of your posts. Too many here have glommed onto a Manichean view of American history. Or maybe it’s a revival of Yankee Puritanism with a dash of the 1860s Radical Republican, not that there’s any difference. D’Souza and Glenn Beck contribute to popularizing this mindset for mercenary reasons.
When the country was founded all 13 colonies had slavery. The northern states got rid of it when they didn’t need it anymore. It’s called the Industrial Revolution. That’s what drove their economy. The South depended on cotton and tobacco to fuel their economy. They couldn’t get rid of slavery as fast as the Northern states. But slavery was dying a slow death when Lincoln refused to let the Southern states leave a very VOLUNTARY UNION. With the evention of cotton gin slavery would be effectively over in a few years. Cotton and tobacco was taxed to death and it was going up higher and with the election of Lincoln the cotton states wanted the hell out of the VOLUNTARY union, Lincoln would not let them leave and invaded the Southern states. NC, Tenn, Ark and Virginia left the union because they refused to take up arms against their neighboring states. Slavery was not the reason they left.
War Department April (15th)
Call made on you by tonight’s mail for two (2) Regiments of Military for immediate Service.
Simon Cameron
Secretary of War”
“Hon. Simon Cameron
Secretary of War
Your dispatch is recd. and if genuine which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution and a gross usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina. I will reply more in detail when your call is received by mail.
John W. Ellis
Gov. of N.C.
“Whereas: By Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, followed by a requisition of Simon Cameron, Secretary of War, I am informed that the said Abraham Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South . . . . And, whereas, this high-handed act of tyrranical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law . . . [but] conceived in a spirit of aggression . . . . Now, therefore, I . . . do hereby issue this, my Proclamation, notifying and requesting the Senators and Members of the House of Commons of the General Assembly of North-Carolina, to meet in a Special Session at the Capitol, in the City of Raleigh, on Wednesday the first day of May next . . . . United action in defense of the sovereignty of North Carolina, and of the rights of the South, becomes now the duty of all.”
You should try to find a copy of Charles Francis Adam Jr’s “Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?” The title implies it’s about Cromwell, it’s actually about Robert E Lee and whether or not secession was Constitutional.
Charles Francis Adams Jr was the g-grandson & grandson of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. A Union officer in the Civil War who was in combat against Lee. And his conclusion on the legality of secession will come as a surprise to most.
https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellhav00adam/page/n5
Sounds like a lie.
In reading that book I have a different view of Jefferson and Madison, while they were brilliant, they were also limited in their thinking about how they wanted this country to be. Primarily they wanted a agrarian economy, which was unrealistic.
I also found Jefferson to be petty, small minded and a terrible hypocrite as to his conflicts on slavery itself. Not to mention a terrible business man.
The fact is there is a lot of blame that can go around as to slavery, and the issues of State's Rights.
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.