Posted on 11/23/2002 7:30:17 AM PST by stainlessbanner
Nonsense as I never claimed he "focused narrowly" on only the radicals. I noted that they were the primary target of his frustrations, though I permitted his criticisms of others including Seward.
You can say Seward wasn't "moderate," but his efforts to resolve the conflict did not merit such abuse.
His efforts to compromise were not the subject of "abuse" though. Wigfall's issue was with speech that had lent favorability to domestic terrorists of the John Brown mold that had been a reality for some time and that many southerners feared were being incited to further terror.
Your claims about Sumner's general character and approach may be true, but do not back up your claim that there was daily vicious abuse of Southerners by Republicans during the late 1860 early 1861 Congressional session.
In the event that I have time to pull the congressional speeches from the library, I will happily post passages of some of his vitriol. Unfortunately those records are not available electronically hence I cannot post from them or access them on a regular basis without a trip to the library. For the time being I can offer you one of the speeches of his that is online, that being the infamous Crime Against Kansas speech from 1856 where he attacked the physical handicaps of another senator.
Nor is accusing your opponents of inspiring arson acceptable political rhetoric.
In the event that truth exists to it, sure it is. It is not a matter of dispute that Seward had publicly lent a favorable voice to leaders of the abolitionist movement's more radical factions, among them those who thought highly of the actions of terrorists like John Brown.
It is on par with accusing one's opponents of inspiring terror bombings today.
In the event that this occurs today, it's valid. Do you not think the trip by Jim McDermott and David Bonior to Iraq would qualify as catering to terrorists today? How about Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney in their radical mohammedan apologies? Or would it be wrong to call Ron Dellums on his Grenada charade back in the 80's? Cases abound in modern times where our own opponents in the Democrat party could legitimately be criticized for encouraging terror, communism, america-hating dictatorships, and the sort. The same could easily be said with regard to domestic arsonists about those who gave a favorable voice to the organizations supporting John Brown.
"Plotting" is a particularly invidious characterization of Lincoln's consideration of options.
The problem with that statement is that The Lincoln was not simply offering a "consideration of options" out of many you purport him to. The statement "the General must retake them" sounds more like a directly stated position to me.
Clearly the army would have to be prepared for all contingencies and taking back the fort was one such contingency.
And by any reasonable consideration, it was also the direction The Lincoln desired. He said "the General must retake them afterwards," not "the General should be prepared for the possibility of retaking them as an option out of many." See the difference?
A less biased observer would not characterize this as "plotting" but as preparedness and consideration of options.
To the contrary. Any non-biased reading of The Lincoln's statements takes them for what they say, and what they say is simply not what you purport them to say. The Lincoln made it as clear as possible that "the General must retake them," not some wishy washy request for "preparedness" and "consideration" of it among many options.
Oh, we had a class at Parris Island on the .45 from a staff sergeant with one eye. He was very animated:
"Recruits, at the end of this period of instruction, you will be able, without the aid of references, to identify the three positive safety devices of the M1911A1 semi-automatic pistol, you will, without the aid of references be able to assemble and dissasemble the M1911A1 semi-automatic pistol, and you WILL, without the aid of references, be able to successfully engage man-sized targets out to a range of fifty meters!"
I half expected him to say, "So help you God!"
I still like the .45. I don't care for that nine mil. that they sloughed off on us.
Walt
Did Senator Sumner need a beating as much as Georgia needed to be made howl?
Walt
Last I checked, Georgia never attacked the physical disabilities or appearance of Sherman.
No, it just makes Linclon look like he wanted to make war. And that he did.
I am not going to waste my time looking for something which I don't believe exists. I said that I didn't believe that you could provide an example and you indeed could not.
What an utterly stupid silly response! You claimed attribution of a certain quote to H. L. Mencken. I suggested that he never seriously said anything of the sort and challenged you to provide a source for your attribution. Instead of simply acknowledging that you were unable to do so, you respond with this irrelevent canard. You have exposed yourself as the ignorant ass with the fantasy worldview.
If Davis wanted war he would of consented to Beauregard's whishes to take D.C. right after Bull Run. At best, or worst, Sumter was a misunderstanding that Linclon took advantage of. I know all of that damaged union granite was held sacred in the North, or so the propaganda said.
In the first place the war had already been underway for three months by the time of Bull Run. In the second place, Beauregard and his army were incapable of taking D.C. right after Bull Run.
Any misunderstanding was on the part of Davis when he thought that the south could win the war against the Union. He badly overestimated his own and the south's abilities and underestimated Lincoln's and the North's resolve.
I guess you should of been there, that way you could of prevented Linclon from fleeing to New York right after Bull Run. Beauregard wanted to, Davis said no. Can we agree on that?
No, we can't.
"After nightfall, Davis met with his two generals at Beauregard's headquarters. They exchanged congratulations; the president promoted Beauregard to full general and asked about plans for pursuit. After some discussion, the three men recognized the impossibility of pressing forward in any organized fashion. The First Battle of Manassas, or in Union terminology the First Battle of Bull Run, was over. After this battle as after so many Civil War battles to follow, the victorious army was too spent and too disorganized to follow up its tactical victory with effective pursuit." - from "Jefferson Davis, American" by William C. Davis, page 348-349.
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.