Posted on 02/04/2003 3:42:54 AM PST by kattracks
Uh, Walt. That was a different race two years later. Try again.
The debates set the stage. Lincoln was nobody before the debates. He "won" the debates in a much more tangible sense than your endorsement of Douglas' prowess shows.
What this particular weird seque shows is your perverse objection to -anything- Lincoln accomplished. You are saying a lot more about yourself than you are him.
Walt
That wouldn't be a new interpretation.
I forget if it was Sam Adams or John Adams who said, "when the pot boils, the scum will rise."
Walt
"Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races."
To accomplish this he then suggests "Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service."
Over and over and over again in the letter, Lee talks about the need for emancipation by way of military service. He remarks that the south can do this freely on its own and that this is the better course than having the yankees invade and do it by force.
In sum it seems that the letter you claimed to be a ringing endorsement for the preservation of slavery was in fact a letter recognizing the inevitability of its end and a call to achieve that by voluntary means rather than at the end of a yankee sword. Try again, Walt.
"I knew a man Bojangles,
and he'd dance for you--
the old soft shoe..."
Oh wait. You're tap dancing.
Walt
New or not, the issue is whether it is your interpretation. If it is indeed your interpretation of Washington et al in their views, and if it is also your interpretation, as you have oft asserted, that The Lincoln shared identically in those views, then The Lincoln was a racist contrary to your assertions elsewhere.
Don't change the subject, Walt. You asserted that Lincoln won some unknown popular vote that seems to have not occurred. Whether the debates helped Lincoln gain national prominence is not the matter of contention here. I have asked you repeatedly to state your case on how The Lincoln won the popular vote when he was not even a candidate to be voted on by the people at large.
At the very least you should be able to provide evidence for your claim, such as the vote totals showing how much The Lincoln "won" by. Yet you do not and cannot because there are no such totals - he wasn't on the ballot. Finding that to be the case, it now seems you have drifted into evasion territory by trying to change the subject to the prominence The Lincoln gained from those debates. Your desparation could not be more obvious.
And you thought Al Qaeda was a threat; it's really General Sherman that they are still worried about for whatever reason.
By publicly making an issue of the contradictions in The Lincoln's speeches from town to town.
That whole charade you've been playing about this letter is par for the course for a liar of your caliber.
So yes Walt, your dance is well known around here. It follows tall is short, day is night, war is peace, black is white etc. etc. etc....
People can read Lee's letter and make their own conclusions.
Walt
The accomplishment of Sabine Pass was not to break the blockade of Galveston (which, by the way, remained a haven for blockade runners to the end of the war). It was to thwart the attempt of The Lincoln to seize east Texas' cotton stores, the so-called "breadbasket of the confederacy" during the war. The dissolution of foreign trade and the war had left the north short on cotton and in economic chaos in those industries. That cotton was in east Texas, unimpeded by the war, and The Lincoln set out to get it. His mission was of two purposes - get the cotton for the north, and in doing so take from the south what it had been running through the blockades for its own sustanence.
Sabine Pass thwarted this mission, forcing The Lincoln to try again. The next try was called the Red River campaign. He put together a 45,000 man invasion force along with 58 warships - the largest inland fleet ever assembled on the North American continent. He sent them to invade from northern Louisiana. They were thwarted again at Mansfield.
New or not, the issue is whether it is your interpretation. If it is indeed your interpretation of Washington et al in their views, and if it is also your interpretation, as you have oft asserted, that The Lincoln shared identically in those views, then The Lincoln was a racist contrary to your assertions elsewhere.
Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln vary not one whit in their view of the permanance of Union.
You should stop the creative writing and prove otherwise in their words.
Walt
That they can and any sane, reasonable person will notice how blatantly you were lying. You claimed to have a letter from Lee that was a ringing endorsement of continuing slavery at all costs and as a good for the confederacy.
I pressured you for that letter, and sure enough it is a call for the confederate government to offer slaves and their families emancipation and compensation in exchange for fighting! In other words, the complete opposite of what you claimed it was.
Do you know when the War of Yankee Aggression(as it is properly designated) took place? Apparently not. It wasn't "hundreds of years ago".
By publicly making an issue of the contradictions in The Lincoln's speeches from town to town.
There's no doubt that Lincoln couched his argument in different terms as he moved further into southern Illinois. But I reckon the record can stand your interpretation -- especially as it is similar to making a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.
Lincoln wound up in the White House. Douglas did not.
That process started in these debates.
Walt
You condemn Lincoln for his views on the races and you believe Douglas was the better choice? His views on the races make Lincoln look like a champion of diversity. His proposed 13th Amendment stripped Congress of any power to regulate slavery in the territories, although it would have allowed states to decide if they would be slave or not. His proposed 14th Amendment would have denied blacks the right to vote or hold office, and would have required that the government obtain land in Africa for the purpose of sending any black person a state wished to see sent there, at government expense. In other words, the very forced emigration you claim Lincoln supported. It would have also prevented Congress from ever passing any laws limiting slavery where they had jurisdiction or any amendment that limited slavery in any way.
And in the end, once the south initiated the war, Douglas was a strong supporter of the administration and its war aims to the point of giving up his life for it. So I fail to see where Douglas would have been better. But I suppose any 'racist' is acceptable to you, so long as it isn't Lincoln and any 'tyrant' is acceptable to you so long as it isn't Lincoln.
Don't try to change the subject, Walt. You stated not only this but that they held identical views of the Constitution. You also stated that the Constitution was created by those same men for racist purposes.
If both of your statements are true, that means that The Lincoln was also a racist. Yet that contradicts your claims elsewhere. I am asking you "which is it?" Is The Lincoln's view identical, making him a racist, or is he not a racist, meaning his view is not identical? You can't have it both ways.
That they can and any sane, reasonable person will notice how blatantly you were lying. You claimed to have a letter from Lee that was a ringing endorsement of continuing slavery at all costs and as a good for the confederacy.
Did I say that?
You put up that 1856 letter about how bad Lee supposedly thought slavery was.
I'd say this 1865 letter says it's not so bad after all. In fact, I'd day that Lee's opinion is that the relationship of master and slave should only be broken up if large powerful armies are kicking down the door.
Walt
Don't try to change the subject, Walt.
That seems to be your line when the record won't support you.
Whatshisname said that Lincoln ushered in big government, when the record shows Washington, Madison and Jackson saying pretty much the same thing Lincoln did.
Sorry that doesn't suit you.
Walt
Are you still using confederate money by chance?
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.