After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

https://www.reporternews.com ^ | March 9, 2019 | Jerry Patterson

[rockrr]

Maybe you should get your mommy to read #232 to you.

[FLT-bird]

Maybe you should just answer instead of acting like a lil beyotch.

[rockrr]

Keep dodging, bird-brain. It’s not a very becoming look - but it looks perfect on you!

[FLT-bird]

Keep whining like a lil beyotch rocks in his head. Its suits you.

[Bull Snipe]

We were talking about Jefferson Davis’s footprints over the Confederate Constitution. Lincoln’s footprints on the United States Constitution are already well known. You were the one that claimed Davis followed the Confederate Constitution scrupulously. He did not.

[Bull Snipe]

“By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy.”

Exactly as I had states. It was a last ditch effort to save a Confederacy that Davis realized was dying. Why didn’t he make the offer in 1862? Because Davis believed that the Confederacy had a good chance of surviving at the time.
By Nov 1864 all such thoughts were gone. It was a last ditch effort, just as enlisting 40,000 slaves for non combat duty, and a few month later allowing them to enlist in combat units. The dying gasp of diplomacy and social engineering to try and save the Confederacy.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snip:

We were talking about Jefferson Davis’s footprints over the Confederate Constitution. Lincoln’s footprints on the United States Constitution are already well known. You were the one that claimed Davis followed the Confederate Constitution scrupulously. He did not.

No, that is not what I said. I said he followed the Confederate constitution more closely than Lincoln followed the US Constitution. I stand by that.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

Exactly as I had states. It was a last ditch effort to save a Confederacy that Davis realized was dying. Why didn’t he make the offer in 1862? Because Davis believed that the Confederacy had a good chance of surviving at the time. By Nov 1864 all such thoughts were gone. It was a last ditch effort, just as enlisting 40,000 slaves for non combat duty, and a few month later allowing them to enlist in combat units. The dying gasp of diplomacy and social engineering to try and save the Confederacy.

We have a difference of opinion then in how we characterize it. You say "last ditch". I point out it was only a year after the EP and the war was very much still raging.

[Bull Snipe]

One year 11 months after the EP. The war was still on. But almost all hope of victory was fast fading from the Confederate view.
Lee’s army was penned in Petersburg, Sherman was about to start his march across Georgia. In one month, Hood’s Army of Tennessee would be crushed outside of Nashville. The city of Savannah would surrender to Sherman. Flour was 500 Confederate dollars a barrel, if you could find it. 95% of Southern ports were sealed off due to the U.S. Navy blockade. Two million slaves were now free because of the Union Army. The South was down to offering emancipation in exchange for Diplomatic recognition. Davis proposed enlisting 40,000 slave to support the Confederate Army. With a couple of months the Confederate Congress would consider enlisting slaves as soldiers. These acts are a pretty good indicator of how low the Confederacy had sunk.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

Lee’s army was penned in Petersburg, Sherman was about to start his march across Georgia. In one month, Hood’s Army of Tennessee would be crushed outside of Nashville. The city of Savannah would surrender to Sherman. Flour was 500 Confederate dollars a barrel, if you could find it. 95% of Southern ports were sealed off due to the U.S. Navy blockade. Two million slaves were now free because of the Union Army. The South was down to offering emancipation in exchange for Diplomatic recognition. Davis proposed enlisting 40,000 slave to support the Confederate Army. With a couple of months the Confederate Congress would consider enlisting slaves as soldiers. These acts are a pretty good indicator of how low the Confederacy had sunk.

You say "penned" in Petersburg. I'd say they were entrenched there blocking the Union Army and the Union Army had been unable to dislodge them. The whole point about allowing Blacks to serve in the Confederate Army was something the Confederate Congress had drug its heels on. It was always limited in scope. Several states allowed it from early on and Confederate officers in the field had been simply ignoring the Confederate Congress' dictate on that for years. They offered to abolish slavery in exchange for diplomatic recognition and they turned down multiple offers of compensated emancipation from the federal government.....and in anticipation of the inevitable no, I'm not going to look it up. Y'all are all out of those for this thread. Look it up for yourself - yes, it happened. Just as the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Obviously, slavery was not what the Southern states were fighting over just its not what the Northern states were fighting over.

[BroJoeK]

NKP_Vet: "Inconvenient facts that Lincoln idolators don’t want to know.
Screws with their PC narrative."

Nonsense.
In 1856 Republicans nominated a pure abolitionist for President, John C. Fremont, and lost bigtime.
So in 1860 Republicans selected Lincoln precisely because, in Republican terms, he was a "moderate" -- opposed to slavery's expansion but also committed to protecting slavery according to the Constitution.

All these quotes you guys keep posting from Lincoln simply established his bonafides as a "moderate".

How did Lincoln go from "moderate" to emancipation & abolition?
Well, Jefferson Davis had something to do with that.

NKP_Vet: "The many thousands of men who risked their lives and spilled blood to defeat the Confederacy would be appalled.
Abraham Lincoln would see the malice toward all, the charity toward none.
Ulysses S Grant would be shocked... "

The rest of your post, including this whole paragraph, I think the rest of us all agree with.
Nicely said, sir.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel."

Naw... the fact is, you're a coward -- you post your nonsense endlessly, but don't have the guts to answer the real truth.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy."

That same act in late 1861 would have made a huge difference, probably would have won the war.
By late 1864, with the war nearly lost, it both was and was seen as an act of pure desperation and insincerity -- far too little, far too late.

By 1865, when Confederates approached Europeans on it, the Brits were not interested and the French were willing to follow British lead.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The whole PC Revisionist "it was all about slavery" argument is leftist dogma."

Your "traditional" explanations of "it was all about money & class warfare" is pure Marxism.
The slavery explanation has the benefit of being what Fire Eater secessionists said in 1861, and what Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 was all about.

Very few at the time explained it as pure economics.

[BroJoeK]

My goodness, sir, you've posted a lot of nonsense here.
So let's get started:

yoe: "Lincoln responded to this criticism in a letter on April 1, 1861 stating he is .... To Horace Greeley (published in NY Tribune) ... "

Lincoln's letter to Greeley was August 22, 1862, not April 1861.
This was after Lincoln wrote his Emancipation Proclamation, but before he made it public.

yoe: "Lincoln's official duty and goal is to save the union, not either to save or destroy slavery -neither pro-slavery or radical abolitionist -'If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it'."

Right, at that point -- August 1862 -- Lincoln was still willing to accept Confederate surrender without emancipation.
But that time was quickly ending.

Lincoln's letter to Greeley ends with this:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

yoe: "the South did not have a Civil War, the South wanted to Secede as did some of the other states in the North..."

From the beginning Confederates attacked & invaded Union states & territories, including Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio & Kansas.
That was Civil War.

yoe: "Lincoln was a Tyrant, jailed those who disagreed with him and broke Constitutional Law where he pleased in order to keep on fighting...."

Lincoln did nothing in this regard in the Union which Jefferson Davis did not also do in the Confederacy.

yoe: "The Civil War was like all wars, horrible...the Union soldiers were like all conquering soldiers, they raped women, black and white, raped children, pillaged, stole, killed all animals.....that history was buried, it is now available."

A total lie.
In fact you have no verified evidence -- zero -- to support any claims that Union troops behaved any worse in the South than Confederate troops did in Union states.

Setting aside the issue of "contraband", both sides were rather well behaved when compared with any other similar war in history.

[DoodleDawg]

However if both the President and the Congress went along with it then it would be done regardless of the actual constitutional niceties....as we both know.

Yes, the Confederate contempt for their constitution is well established. And without the third branch of government to act as a check and balance on the other two branches they may have gotten away with it.

They'd hardly be the only government in North America to have trampled on their constitution in order to do what they thought necessary to win.

Only one I'm aware of.

As we both know, exigencies of war had not provided the opportunity for them to do that yet.

Davis and the Confederate congress had the time to confirm four Secretaries of State, though they had nobody to carry on diplomatic relations with. They confirmed five Secretaries of War, though Davis ran things on his own. Six Attorney Generals, though they didn't have a judiciary. Three Treasury secretaries, a Navy secretary, and a Postmaster general, all appointed and none required by the constitution. They kept Davis's revolving door of a cabinet stocked but not the third branch of government. Exigencies of war had nothing to do with it. Contempt for the rule of law did.

Was it unconstitutional? Possibly. So what?

Would you cut Lincoln the same slack?

You just can't help yourself can you?

My opinion hasn't changed. And as I said it's hard to sit by when you post such ridiculous crap.

[Bull Snipe]

Which Confederate States had laws that allowed slaves to serve in the regiments raised by that state and sent off to serve in the Confederate Army.

“Obviously, slavery was not what the Southern states were fighting over.”
If that was the case, why did the Confederacy wait until Nov 1864 to offer Emancipation as bargaining chip to lure the Brits and French into diplomatically recognizing the Southern Confederacy. Why not 1861 or 1862. The answer, in those years the Confederacy had an expectation of victory.
By Nov 1864 that expectations had evaporated. Emancipation for diplomatic recognition was a “Hail Mary” pass by a dying Confederacy.

[Bull Snipe]

In Dec 1864, Lord Palmerstone told the Confederate envoy that there was absolutely no way the British Government would ever recognize the Confederate States.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Obviously, slavery was not what the Southern states were fighting over just its not what the Northern states were fighting over."

Then there were these quotes:

1. 1849: "Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb:
   'First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections.'
   [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says,
   'I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union.' "
   
   
2. 1856: "Richmond Enquirer, 1856:
   'Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery.' "

3. 1858: "Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America:
   'I want a foothold in Central America... because I want to plant slavery there....
   I want Cuba,... Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States;
   and I want them all for the same reason - for the planting or spreading of slavery'
   [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]"

4. 1859 -- "Richard Thompson Archer (Mississippi planter):
   'The South is invaded.
   It is time for all patriots to be united, to be under military organization, to be advancing to the conflict determined to live or die in defence of the God given right to own the African'
   ---letter to the Vicksburg Sun, Dec. 8, 1859."

5. 1859: "Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia:
   'There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.'
   [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]"

6. 1860: "Atlanta Confederacy, 1860:
   'We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing.' "

7. 1860: "Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860:
   'African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence.
   Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.'
   Later in the same speech he said,
   'The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy.
   We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.'
   Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller."

8. 1860: "Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes:
   'Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.
   I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question.
   I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it.'
   Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860.
   See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates.
   Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864."

9. 1860: "Senator Louis Trezevant Wigfall; December 11, 1860, on the floor of the Senate;
   'I said that one of the causes, and the one that has created more excitement and dissatisfaction than any other, is, that the Government will not hereafter, and when it is necessary, interpose to protect slaves as property in the Territories;
   and I asked the Senator if he would abandon his squatter-sovereignty notions and agree to protect slaves as all other property?'
   [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 58.]"

10. 1860: "Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell:
    'If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy?
    This is the great, grave issue.
    It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule --- it is a question of political and social existence.'
    [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]"

11. 1861: "Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention, p. 44
    'The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....
    The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...
    Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us.
    That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced.
    The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises.
    They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble.' "

12. 1861: "Thomas F. Goode, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, March 28, 1861, Virginia Secession Convention, vol. II, p. 518,
    'Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation---the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery...' "

13. 1861: "John Tyler Morgan, Dallas County, Alabama; also speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861:
    The Ordinance of Secession rests, in a great measure, upon our assertion of a right to enslave the African race, or, what amounts to the same thing, to hold them in slavery.' "

14. 1862: "The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade.
    In one of the November, 1862 issues, the following appeared:
    "...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar.' "

15. 1863: "William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863:
    'This country without slave labor would be completely worthless.
    We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last.'
    [James McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, p. 107]"

16. 1863: "Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina:
    'The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . .
    This war is the servant of slavery.'
    [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).]"

17. 1864: "Catherine Ann Devereux Edmonston, December 30, 1864:
    'We have hitherto contended that Slavery was Cuffee's normal condition, the very best position he could occupy, the one of all others in which he was happiest... No!
    Freedom for whites, slavery for negroes.
    God has so ordained it.'
    From: The Journal of a Secesh Lady: The Diary of Catherine Ann Devereux Edmonston, 1860-1866."

18. 1864: "CS Brigadier General Clement Stevens:
    'If slavery is to be abolished then I take no more interest in our fight.
    The justification of slavery in the South is the inferiority of the negro.
    If we make him a soldier, we concede the whole question.'
    [Cited in James C. Nisbet, Four Years on the Firing Line, pp. 172--173; my thanks to Jon Morrison, of Dalton, GA, for pointing me to this item.]"

At the time, slavery was on everyone's mind.

[NKP_Vet]

Lincoln was a socialist and a pen pal of Karl Marx. He destroyed the government that our Founding Fathers fought and died for. A two-bit railroad lawyer with no scruples doing the bidding of the NE Industralists who controlled the government.