You'd make some people pretty happy if you could show these quotes by Davis, Breckinridge, Stephens and Johnston to be unfounded.
Have at it.
"In 1886 Grady, thirty-six years old, was invited to address the New England Society of New York, on the 266th anniversary to the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. General Sherman, seated on the platform, was an honored guest, and the band played [I am not making this up] "Marching Through Georgia" before Grady was Introduced. Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character. "Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
Walt
Exactly. In addition to the Richmond Examiner, there was also the Richmond Whig. What ever one would say, the other would disagree with as a matter of principle. If I remember correctly from my "Sectionalism and the Civil War" class of 25 years ago, taught by the esteemed Dr. Daniel Jordan (now President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation which runs Monticello) http://www.monticello.org/tjf/jordan.html, the owners of the newspapers had an extreme personal animosity for each other that existed long before the start of the war. Anything quoted from one paper is more than likely just a personal attack of one individual against another. An opinion from today's Washington Post or New York Times has about as much credibility.
One of the greatest revisionist historian lies propogated by Lincoln worshippers is that he freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclomation. The reality is that it freed only the slaves in captured southern territories and was issued only for inflicting economic damage on the South. The yankee slave holders in Maryland, Kentucky, etc. still held their slaves until the end of the war and were free to whip them whenever the mood struck (no pun intended) .
The fact that yankees have some sort instinct to meddle in other's affairs had as much to do with why the the Southern States succeeded. The slave holders were a small minority in the south. A slave holder with twenty or more slaves could get an exemption from military service for the same economic reason that Lincoln freed them. This did not sit well with the enlisted personnel who volunteered to fight. This people were dirt poor and slavery was no issue to them one way or the other. They fought and died because they believed the yankees had no right to invade, no matter the reason. The Commonwealth of Virginia did not suceed untill Lincoln said he was going to send Federal troops across it's territory on the way to quell the rebellion in South Carolina.
The yankee meddling continues to this day with the Northeastern Liberal Elitists attempting to make all fifty states a clone of Massachusetts, complete with a Kennedy in every govenors mansion and ram unrequested and unwanted Federal crapolla like a Lincoln Statue down people's throats.