Posted on 04/24/2002 9:33:49 AM PDT by wasp69
RICHMOND - It's only a two-hour drive from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House here on Clay Street.
It took four years and more than 600,000 lives to make that same journey during the second American Revolution, now officially known as the US Civil War.
It's odd that this nation's bloodiest war, a war between brothers, stretched from 1861 until 1865 when the capital of the COnfederate States of America in Richmond is only 100 miles south from the capital of the United States of America in Washington.
Thousands of Americans annually visit Civil War battlefields, museums and monuments.
Enthusiasts study in passionate detail the leaders, military strategy and battles of the Civil War.
My fascination with the Civil War has less to do with military engagements than with the motivations of up to 1.5 million Southern men and boys wiling to die to tear the nation in two in defense of slavery, an utterly indefedsible institution.
Had the conflict, also known as the War of the Southern Planters, been fought only by Southern slave owners, it would have been over in weeks rather than years.
As it was, brilliant and charismatic Confederate Generals such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson led armies of poor, non-slave-owning Southerners into battle and came dangerously close to winning the war.
My mother's and father's ancestors were Southerners who fought for the Confederacy. I'm pleased that their side lost.
As a young man I fought for passage of civil rights laws that would eliminate the vestiges of slavery and the continued denial of equal rights to black Americans. What, I wondered, could my Confederate ancestors have been thinking?
I did not find the answer during my tour of the White House of the Confederacy or in the next-door Museum of the Confederacy.
A curator at the museum understood my state of perplexity but could only tell me that it's impossible to judge the decisions of my Confederate ancestors based on todays standards.
Although slavery was central to the decision by the Southern states to break away from the Union, many causes over the years led to conflict.
Sectional rivalry developed as the North became industrialized and gained population with European immigration.
The North wanted to build roads, canals and railroads to accommodate growing industries. Without personal or corporate taxation, revenue was raised by tariffs, which protected Northern products and increased prices of imported goods needed by the nonindustrialized South.
Southerners felt they were being gouged by their Northern brethern. They also felt that the states, not the federal government, had the authority to regulate commerce and other affairs. They also felt that the states had the right under the Constitution to separate from the Union, an idea that had strong supporters in both the North and South.
Deciding whether new territories and states would be slave or nonslave became a North-South fight for power in Congress and within the federal government.
Northern abolitionists demonized the Southerners and backed them into their own regional corner. Many Americans in the early years of the nation felt stronger regional and state pride than national pride.
Lee, who did not want to break up the Union, declined an offer to command the Union Army. He chose fight for Virginia and the South.
There must be lessons to be learned from the Civil War that can be applied to current and future conflicts.
Really? I seem to recall that a week or two back, the poster formerly known as LLAN-DDUESSANT (at least before that persona got banned from posting here) questioned the authenticity of the source I used in a couple posts, primarily to other posters than himself. Following his embarrassment, Llan-ey (aka Titus Fikus) hid his face and avoided me during the time between then and now refusing to address his embarrassing and dishonest attempts to discredit my source on pure fabrications. Therefore I find it odd that this same poster could profess with a straight face to posess an understanding, much less basic knowledge, of what I have been saying in between.
So, by all means, let's not limit ourselves to just a few lines. Consider this from the above in Adam's 'The Great Secession Winter of 1860-61'
You are more than welcome to post all the lines you want, Llan-ey. But simply posting lines left and right is not argumentation, a distinction you seem to have had great trouble grasping dating back to the days of your now-banned former posting identification. Therefore, do not be surprised when I make the reasonable decision to classify your posts as little more than randomly quoting Adams' pro-northern statements without regard to the specific historical issue I addressed with a specific quote of his on that issue. I do take humor though in the fact that I have so easily frustrated you with a simple quote from one of your own conceding a fact about the war many on your side, including apparently you, would rather keep quiet. If nothing else, your quotations of Adams, which demonstrate his authenticity as a credible yankee, help my cause more than your own. There's no better way to bolster the credentials of the statement I quoted to yankees than establishing similarly to yankees their affiliation with the source of that quotation. Not that you would realize such things in all your short-sightedness and irrational incoherence.
In short, your postings are without consequence or coherence to the issue at hand, yet give credibility to my use of that issue by virtue of the fact that they establish the yankee credentias of its source. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
There are also no explicit prohibitions against rape, murder or abortion in the Constitution either. You lay out all these detailed arguments that simply will not be compelling to any fair minded person.
On the contrary you make my point for me. Why does the Constitution contain no explicit prohibitions against rape, murder or abortion in the Constitution? Because most points of law were left to the States in the words of Mr. Madison, The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The States outlawed rape, murder or abortion. Until, that is, the your favorite federal court stepped in and announced that abortion must be legal in every State. But lets refer to the words of one of the (few) conservative justices on that court:
(W)here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people [of the States].
Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton, 1995
The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, my friend. Read the Tenth Amendment the Constitution nowhere delegates or prohibits secession, no matter how hard you try to to deduce [such a prohibition] by implication:
Really, all your argument does is give life to the words of George Washington in 1796:
Yes, lets review a few of Mr. Washingtons comments while were at it:
Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it...It is well worth a fair and full experiment.
I can not but hope that the States which may be disposed to make a secession will think often and seriously on the consequence.
I should be astonished if [North Carolina] should withdraw from the Union.
It certainly appears from his comments that Mr. Washington viewed the new union as an experiment from which some States might (unwisely, in his opinion, if not illegally) secede.
Even more succintly, you are condemned from the mouth of Thomas Jefferson...
Condemned? Really? Lets review Mr. Jeffersons words from a few short years later:
Whether we remain in one confederacy or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederations, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part.
Hardly looks like a condemnation of State secession to me. And shall we review his Kentucky Resolutions - yet again? Hmm?
Your opinion is in error.
Quote a direct warrant in the Constitution prohibiting secession, and I will admit to being in error. But I am not a believer in unwritten law, as so many unionists appear to be. Rather, I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people...
I don't see how anyone can fault Abraham Lincoln and the brave Union soldiers, or the people of the United States, for preserving the government of Washington.
You failed to answer my questions in Post #64. You declared that you firmly believe that the Government has the right simply to maintain its own existance. I asked where, precisely, is that right delegated to the federal government by the Constitution? Or have you decided that the federal governments own court is 'supreme,' and that the Constitution, the States, and the people can go fish? Care to answer now?
I like guns. I like 'em fine.
think they especially come in handy when the government of Washington and Lincoln are threatened.
Did you swear an oath to defend the government of Washington and Lincoln or did you swear the same oath I did?
Are you still of the belief that, as of March 4 1861, Lincoln had not yet seen the three-line constitutional amendment he had helped draft back in December, promoted through January, convinced the House to substitute in place of an alternate language in February, lobbied congress to pass through March 2nd when it did just that, and paraphrased in his inaugural address only seconds after he denied having ever seen it? So much for "honest abe."
I know that you expended a lot of energy and only showed youself a liar, not Mr. Lincoln.
Walt
- You both rely heavily on cut n' paste style quotations of others.
- While cutting n' pasting, you both often appeal to the authority of that from which you quote - sloppy argumentation at best.
- You both set absurd standards of historical documentation to which you demand others meet. Llan-ey did this on his silly attempt to discredit the Adams quote I posted, and Walt does it every time I refuse to retype a 30 page chapter of a book verbatim since he's too lazy to get a copy himself.
- Neither of you come anywhere close to meeting these documentation standards in your own posting activities. Both of you have quoted without giving any source at times and Walt recently requested I look up a passage he wasn't willing to type only moments after refusing to do the same when I directed him to a much more prolific writing than that he requested I seek.
- More often than not, the cut n' pastes made by both of you have little or absolutely nothing to do with that to which they purport to be responding.
- You both verbally abuse credentialed sources, historical figures, and other FR posters for simply holding an opinion on the war different from your own. Llan-ey does this much more so than Walt, who for the most part, but not always, controls his mouth. Comparatively, Llan-ey's mouth is always being shot off and closely resembles its downtown Boston street gutter source that got Llan-ey thrown off of FR a few months ago.
- You both interject yourselves into conversations/debates with myself and other posters and continue only to the point that the going gets tough for you. Cornered with facts, you both retreat and duck under the radar for a few days or weeks by not responding, only to reappear after the situation has passed touting the same line that got you into trouble earlier despite its having caused you factual difficulties immediately prior.
Its all a very interesting testament to your mindset, and one to which I invite my fellow confederates to add their own contributions. Other than that, have a nice day.
By all appearances you oath is worth about as much as a pee behind a tree.
I took the oath several times.
As an officer, I took this oath on August 14, 1981:
"I (state your name) swear or affirm that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear truth faith and allegience to the same, and will obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me, and that I take this obligation without moral reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God."
Damn all traitors to hell.
Walt
An interesting assertion from somebody, who when called upon it earlier, could not even take the time to substantiate it.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Therefore your above statement fails you. It's as simple as that.
If oyu can't find something pithy to quote out of 30 pages, it can hardly be very important or compelling.
In fact, it must be completely useless if it comes to us through your filter.
You hate the primary sources.
I like them, because I don't want the words of Washington and Lincoln to be forgotten or misused.
Walt
Are you still of the belief that, as of March 4 1861, Lincoln had not yet seen the three-line constitutional amendment he had helped draft back in December, promoted through January, convinced the House to substitute in place of an alternate language in February, lobbied congress to pass through March 2nd when it did just that, and paraphrased in his inaugural address only seconds after he denied having ever seen it?
A simple yes or no will suffice for now, though I do reserve the right to pursue an explanation of why at a later time. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Isn't that about what they did at the NYC draft riots?
You can't prove that Lincoln knew what the proposed text of the 13th amendment was. Why would he lie?
Why not say in his first inaugural, "I have examined the text of the proposed 13th amendment, and concur fully."
Surely even you cannot deny that Lincoln sought compromise --talking rather than fighting -- in everything he said in 1860-61 (and throughout his life).
WHY would he lie about this?
You have tried to prove that Mister Lincoln lied in this, deducing it from circumstances, and all you've done is show that YOU are the liar.
Walt
Do you suppose the American Revolution should be called "The War of American Rebellion?"
Article 1, section 8.
Walt
Would you be referring to the Hofstadter book in specific or is the above one of your vague generalizations? If it is a reference to Hofstadter, to rebut it I need only note that I provided you with a number of quotes from his book.
In addition, I remind you that those quotes came during a debate over argumentation made upon the authority of experts. In that case, what Hofstadter has to say disputes McPherson. 2 Pulitzers beats 1, so Hofstadter wins, and therefore I win.
In fact, it must be completely useless if it comes to us through your filter.
In that case, let me be the first to announce the uselessness of the filtered tripe you post on this message board daily.
You hate the primary sources.
Coming from a person who recently engaged in a lengthy effort to dispute my primary source account of Lincoln's involvement in the Corwin amendment by quoting from secondary sources, I'll have to take that one with a grain of salt and the recognition of the large dose of hypocrisy that comes with it.
I like them, because I don't want the words of Washington and Lincoln to be forgotten or misused.
Considered in light of my immediately prior response, an answer to the above is not necessary.
Logic dictates otherwise, as Lincoln's documented participation in a number of events prior to March 4th necessitated his familiarity with the amendment.
Why would he lie?
As I have indicated, that is not my concern and is a question to which I could only speculate. Regardless, it bears no relevance upon the fact, in and of itself, that he did just that. And as I have previously indicated, my own theory is that it has something to do with the same reason he specifically asked Lyman Trumbull to keep his involvement in the committee of 13 secret.
Why not say in his first inaugural, "I have examined the text of the proposed 13th amendment, and concur fully."
See above.
Surely even you cannot deny that Lincoln sought compromise --talking rather than fighting -- in everything he said in 1860-61
Not everything, but between late December 1861 and March 4, 1862. But for that matter, Jefferson Davis was a member of the Committee of 13 and actively made compromise proposals in it from early December through the end of January prior to his departure.
WHY would he lie about this?
Again, that is not my concern nor does it address the fact that he did lie.
You have tried to prove that Mister Lincoln lied in this, deducing it from circumstances
No. Deducting it logically from the necessity of individual events. To take an example - For Lincoln to convince Corwin to substitute language X for language Y on the amendment, it is first necessary that Lincoln himself know what X is. Since X was the text that passed and to which Lincoln referred on March 4th, it therefore follows that his familiarity with X entailed familiarity with the amendment itself. That much is inescapable, Walt, and I invite you to show otherwise.
and all you've done is show that YOU are the liar.
Your failure to substantiate that allegation permits me to reject it in a word.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. So there.
I don't know. Were you at the NYC draft riots?
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.