Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed

St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

[sheltonmac]

The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.

They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.

On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.

The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.

It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.

In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.

But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.

One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.

To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.

After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.

They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.

This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.

But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.

They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.

According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.

Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.

The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.

However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.

White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."

Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.

Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.

I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.

In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.

Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.

So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.

[Who is John Galt?]

Your arguments don't convince me.

(We've been through similar discussions before, haven't we? ;>)

The Supremacy clause clearly indicates to me that no state can by its own act void federal laws or exempt itself from their applicability.

It appears that you have been unable to locate a specific constitutional clause or federal law which prohibits secession. Rather, you seem to be are referring to "federal laws" in general, and suggesting that any action which interferes with their application is unconstitutional. Is that right?

A few simple questions: how would you apply that standard to the period when the new Constitution was being ratified? Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, for example, states that “The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of... establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the [thirteen] United States.” Quite obviously, allowing only nine States to establish a new “Constitution between” themselves would interfere with “the sole and exclusive right and power of... establishing or regulating post offices throughout all the [thirteen] United States.” Was ratification of the Constitution therefore a violation of the Articles of Confederation? If so, then why is the Constitution valid? If not, then why could the Southern States not secede under similar circumstances?

It's not common practice for agreements to contain an implied right to break with the agreement whenever one sees fit. Something that important would have been explicitly written into the agreement, not simply assumed to be implicit in it.

You’re suggestion cuts both ways. Previous American constitutional compacts that were intended to be “perpetual” clearly said so, in plain English, in writing. The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England (1643) stated that:

”...said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare... this perpetual Confederation, and the several articles and agreements thereof being read and seriously considered, both by the General Court for the Massachusetts, and by the Commissioners for Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, were fully allowed and confirmed by three of the forenamed Confederates, namely, the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven...”

If I remember correctly, the self-proclaimed “perpetual” United Colonies of New England had ceased to exist as a political entity by 1700. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, although mentioning (in plain English, and in writing ;>) their perpetual nature three times as often as the compact between the United Colonies, lasted only a fraction as long. Other ‘plans of union,’ on the other hand, including those of William Penn (1697) and Benjamin Franklin (1754), which were apparently not intended to be “perpetual,” made no use of the word. There was nothing at all preventing the Framers from inserting the word “perpetual” in the Constitution – if they had intended that the new union be “perpetual” (with membership maintained by force of arms), they simply could have said so.

The very fact that such argument goes on and on with no sign of abatement is an indication that more caution was required in 1860 than the secessionists displayed.

Two points; first the less important, and then the more critical. It would have required two parties with an interest in “more caution... in 1860” to have prevented bloodshed. Mr. Lincoln consulted his cabinet before sending naval vessels to Fort Sumter, and (with only a single exception) the members of his cabinet advised him not to do so. That is simple, documented, historical fact. (I can name names, and cabinet positions, if you like. ;>) Allow me to suggest (in the words of my good friend capitan_refugio) that Mr. Lincoln “chose poorly.”

The more critical issue (IMHO) is with us today. We now possess a de facto national, rather than federal, government: it is quite simply a ‘winner take all’ political system based in Washington, DC. We face issues today that are just as onerous as those that faced the Americans from 1790 to 1860. And some of those issues (abortion, gun control, etc.) have real potential to lead to bloodshed – but only in a ‘winner take all’ system. In a ‘States rights’ system, on the other hand, those same issues are largely defused: if you don’t like New York’s pro-baby-killing laws, for example, you can move to Utah. If you don’t like California’s gun control laws, you can move to New Mexico. Interestingly enough, the Constitution was actually written for a ‘States rights’ system, and if we simply apply it as it was intended to be applied, I believe we will reduce the likelihood of Americans once again killing Americans.

My two cents worth...

;>)

[nolu chan]

[nc] Everybody knew what the word meant.

[n-s] Did they? How about a contemporary law dictionary, or dictionary of any kind?

I quoted from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition. Just how contemporary is your need? I also quoted from Black's Law Dictionary to show that the modern definition is essentially unchanged. Each cites the import of the term as deriving from the Roman Empire.

Deportation, by definition, is an involuntary act.

Bouvier's was edited by William Rawle, and this was the official law dictionary of the United States Senate at the time.

I noted that Lincoln was a lawyer and he was talking to Congress, a group of lawmakers.

Lawyers are intimately familiar with legal definitions and legal terms of art.

I shall repeat what I said the first time:

Lincoln was an attorney talking to a group of law-makers. Everybody knew what the word meant.

DEPORTATION, civil law. Among the Romans a perpetual banishment, depriving the banished of his rights as a citizen; it differed from relegation (q. v.) and exile. (q. v.). 1 Bro. Civ. Law, 125 note; Inst. 1, 12, 1 and 2; -Dig. 48, 22, 14, 1.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition

From a more modern law dictionary:

Deportation
Banishment to a foreign country, attended with confiscation of property and deprivation of civil rights. A punishment derived from the deportatio (q.v.) of the roman Law.

The transfer of an alien, excluded or expelled, from the United States to a foreign country. Petition for Milanovic, D.C.N.Y., 162 F.Supp. 890, 892. The removal or sending back of an alien to the country from which he came because his presence is deemed inconsistent with the public welfare, and without any punishment being imposed or contemplated. The list of grounds for deporation are set forth at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252-1254. See also Banishment. Compare Extradition.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed.

[Held_to_Ransom]

I'll call Father Mark after lunch and let him know his services are no longer needed.

I don't recommend you do that. Someone has yet to teach you that rape, adultery, murder, theft, keeping children from their parents and keeping persons from Christianity and education are sins as well as major crimes. It would help you to learn this.

[x]

I don't want to get drawn into another endless argument. You'll probably find someone else who does. I simply refer to the supremacy clause. If a state cannot simply void a federal law or constitutional provision on its own, it's highly unlikely that it could simply throw off the whole Constitution.

Assume for a minute that the Constitution did dissolve the union as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. I don't know that it did, but if so, the Constitutional Convention (called, I believe, by the Continental Congress) would have constituted an approval of the whole union of a possible change in the status of the union.

Had a convention been called or amendment passed to dissolve the union in 1860, there would have been fewer constitutional problems or conflicts over such a dissolution. Such a use of constitutional channels might also have helped to cool down the political climate. That is the way constitutional governments are expected to behave, with due deliberation and concern with process, consequences, and conciliation. Once the country divided into armed camps, though, such measures were impossible.

As for Sumter, the story of Toombs's warning to Davis not to fire on the fort lest it unite Northerners against the Confederacy is well known. The degree to which Davis was trying to head off South Carolina hotheads, and the degree to which he wanted war to pull the Upper South into the Confederacy have both been topics of much discussion. Davis ran the clear risk of war in making a bet that could have increased the size and power of his little regime. So I don't think you can put all the blame on one side.

Buchanan also has to bear much of the blame. His view that states couldn't secede and the union had no right to prevent them from doing so was inherently unstable, more a refusal to decide than a decision. Each side seized on the part of the formulation that favored their own interest, and war came. I don't know what Buck could have done differently, but it looks like his two-headed argument only strengthened each side in its resolve to fight.

I would agree with you that the federal system has been much imperiled in recent decades. But I'd argue, first, that rather than a defense of federalism, the rebellion looks like a foolish destruction of older concepts of the union. "The Old Republic" died not when Lincoln took office, but with secession and the formation of the Confederacy. Whatever followed would be different from what had come before. Having two armed camps facing each other would have radically changed American history. So would allowing states the right to pick and choose which laws they would obey. Was it worthwhile destroying what we had before the war?

Secondly, the Civil War did point up serious problems with federalism. A union that was silent or indifferent about something as important as slavery was bound to face trouble. This indicates an ongoing problem with federalism of any sort that has to be grappled with by any federated system. It's not clear that any federation can entirely avoid or permanently suppress such conflicts. The old Republic was torn apart by them, not so much by abolitionist passion as by slaveholders' fear and insecurity. So there are no easy answers.

Third, there's some truth in the view that the 14th amendment allowed the federal government -- especially the courts -- to enforce uniform standards on the states, though the widespread use of the Amendment to do so would only happen generations after the Civil War. But the vision of Americans moving from state to state in search of more freedom was given a greater reality by the 14th Amendment. For a large part of the population, such movement wasn't possible in antebellum America.

Much of our loss of freedom has to do with the loss of the frontier and with the introduction of the income tax. I'll grant that the 14th Amendment allowed the courts greater power over both the powers of the states and the rights of individuals, but the effect of the Reconstruction amendments certainly wasn't one-sidedly against freedom. On the contrary, whatever bad effects they they might have had later on, they were also a contribution to greater liberty.

[Held_to_Ransom]

One qeustion. How could slavery not be legal if the importation was?

The importation of slaves was outlawed by Congress in 1808. Didn't you know? No wonder you are lost on this topic. Even South Carolina outlawed the importation of slaves between 1787 and 1803. Doh homer.

But Illinois was a western state, not a northern state, and it never allowed southern slavery. Indentured servitude by contract is still essentially legal in the US today, though I doubt anyone calls it that.

The case of Phoebe v. Jay, 1 Ill 268 (1828) recognized that "voluntary servitude" was the same as slavery. In Pollock v Williams 322 US 4 (1944), the Supreme Court stated, 'When the master can compel and the laborer cannot escape the obligation to go on, there is no power below to redress and no incentive above to relieve a harsh overlordship or unwholesome conditions of work.' Indentured servitude is slavery.

Nice of you to point out indentured servitude was just as illegal as slavery. Good case to establish that point. Don't you want me to make my case instead of letting you do it? I guess not....

By the way, working in a prison is indentured slavery.

Show me where it says 'we legalize slavery, the denial of habeus corpus and the treatment of human beings in the legal category of furniture. SHOW ME.

Ok.

92_SJ0005 1 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois, at the time of its 3 acceptance into the Union in 1818 and for a longtime 4 thereafter, practiced de facto slavery masqueraded as 5 "indentured servitude"; the census of 1840 enumerated slaves 6 in Illinois in violation of the Ordinance of 1787, which 7 outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories; and 8 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois passed the infamous and 9 unjust Black Laws (1819), otherwise known as the Black Codes, 10 which were a denial of human rights designed to cover up 11 slavery and the slave trade within the borders of the State; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois supported the Black Codes 14 for more than forty-six years until they were finally 15 repealed; and 16 WHEREAS, In the State of Illinois the majority of 17 Illinois citizens favored closing the State to 18 African-American residents and withholding the right of 19 citizenship from those African-American residents already 20 living in the State; and 21 WHEREAS, The State of Illinois passed dehumanizing laws 22 stating that slaves were not persons, but property, and as 23 property the ownership of enslaved Africans was to be fully 24 protected by Illinois law; and 25 WHEREAS, For many years, Black people, free or 26 otherwise, had no legal status as citizens in the State of 27 Illinois; and ...

Illegally, I notice. There you go making my case again.

Good. At least you now condemn that trash traitor rag like any US citizen should always.

The south, of course, never acquired the art and technologies of ship building.

Why build a ship when it was cheaper just to ship? If you own a mom & pop store, are you going to invest in tucks, or pay someone?

So General Butler can't come down from NYC on the Staten Island Ferry escorted by a few gunboats and conquer your most important port city with a few thousand men. LOL...............

[nolu chan]

Here is the RELEVANT part of the Lincoln letter, as you are VERY well aware, but choose to lie about.

As Lincoln makes clear, the scumbag governor of Massachusetts of attempting to import Black bodies from Virginia to put in the U.S. Army and export immediately out of the state. Having created a nearly lily-white state, the scumbag governor now wanted to fill the Massachusetts military quota with Blacks imported from Virginia for that purpose and no other.

Coming down to what I suppose to be the real facts, you are engaged in trying to raise colored troops for the U. S. and wish to take recruits from Virginia, through Washington, to Massachusetts for that object; and the loyal Governor of Virginia, also trying to raise troops for us, objects to you taking his material away; while we, having to care for all, and being responsible alike to all, have to do as much for him, as we would have to do for you, if he was, by our authority, taking men from Massachusetts to fill up Virginia regiments.

Charles Graham Halpine
Editor, New York Citizen
Brigadier-General, U.S. Army

|LINK|

SAMBO'S RIGHT TO BE KILT
by Private Miles O'Reilly

Some tell me 'tis a burnin' shame
To make the naygers fight,
And that the trade of bein' kilt
Belongs but to the white.
But as for me, upon my soul!
So lib'ral are we here,
I'll let Sambo be shot instead of myself
On ev'ry day in the year.

Chorus:

On ev'ry day in the year, boys,
And in ev'ry hour in the day,
The right to be kilt I'll divide wid him,
And devil a word I'll say.

In battle's wild commotion,
I shouldn't at all object,
If Sambo's body should stop a ball
That's coming for me direct;
And the prod of a Southern bagnet
So ginerous are we here,
I'll resign and let Sambo take it
On every day in the year.

Chorus:

On ev'ry day in the year, boys,
And wid none 'iv your nasty pride,
All my right in a Southern bagnet prod
Wid Sambo I'll divide.

The men who object to Sambo
Should take his place and fight;
And it's better to have a nayger's hue
Than a liver that's wake and white.
Though Sambo's black as the ace of spades,
His fingers a trigger can pull,
And his eye runs straight on the barrel sight,
From under his thatch of wool.

Chorus:

On ev'ry day in the year, boys,
Don't think that I'm tippin' you chaff,
The right to be kilt we'll divide with him, boys,
And give him the largest half.

bagnet=bayonet

=====

[nolu chan]

[Walt 889 to GOPcap] Show in his words after 1862 that he supported it. [Colonization]

[Non-Seq 872 to nc] Yeah I know, I read it. But I didn't see where Mitchell was proposing that Lincoln start with gradual voluntary emancipation and then hit 'em with the forced expulsions lik GOP suggested. Where is that part?

MITCHELL TO LINCOLN - selected quotes

legislation in our opinion should relieve the Federal Government of much of the necessary trouble, and expense, and throw the labour into the hands of private companies, or chartered bodies of benevolent, energetic, and wealthy men
- December 13, 1861

[nc] The Government should keep the facade of clean hands and use other people's money. See the Mitchell's ingenious idea below.

As to the field of present occupation and concentration the estates of disloyal men eschet to the Government for the lifetime of the owners, those could be placed in the hands of those companies and worked by the freed men under their control -- whilst the return of the title to the family would compel the removal of the laborers -- this would be as desired.
- December 13, 1861

As to the proper locality of the final home, that locality should be as remote from us as possible
- December 13, 1861

[nc] Mitchell advised the Government to seize the estates of the slave owners, and to hold said estates until the proper owner removed the slaves from the United States, preferably to a locale as remote as possible.

[nc] This conclusion to the plan could only be implemented after the war was over and the Government had seized the estates.

P. S. I had a conversation this afternoon with Genl J B Rodgers, of Ten, in regard to the doctrines of the letter of May 18th, and of this point, arming a few thousand negroes -- to be subsequently removed, he agrees with the whole, and agrees with the declaration we uniformly affirm to all our border friends that to hold the Country together in the future there must be a party in the South with emancipation proclivities and measures--
- July 1, 1862

[nc] Obviously, Lincoln was familiar with the doctrines of the letter of May 18th as they needed no explanation. Mitchell briefs a General and reports to Lincoln about it. And look at that, the General agreed to arming a few thousand negroes to be subsequently removed. Preferably removed to a locale as remote as possible.

Washington July 1st 1862

Permit me to place a copy of the letter of the 18th May,² before you; I will send up a few copies to Mr Nickolie's room, for future use should they be needed.

[Note 2 Mitchell's pamphlet on colonization, dated May 18, 1862, is in this collection.]

[nc] This documents Mitchell placing a copy of his letter of the 18th May before Lincoln, and also sending copies to Lincoln's secretary, for future use, or perhaps if a copy is worn out.

From James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln,¹ June 1864

[Note 1 Mitchell, an Indiana minister, was appointed the commissioner for emigration in August 1862.]

[nc] This documents Mitchell was appointed as Commissioner for Emigration in August 1862, after he sent his letter of May 18, 1862 to Lincoln. After having read the Mitchell letter, Lincoln approved of Mitchell's ideas so much that he then appointed Mitchell as the Commissioner of Emigration.

[nc] The appointment was not a moment too soon either, as Holy Reverend James Mitchell, on August 14, 1862 led a group of five Black men into the executive office where Lincoln told them they should emigrate and that they were selfish if they disagreed.

[nolu chan]

[n-s] Speaking of crazy, how does this support your crazy claim that Lincoln wanted to forcibly expel 4 million black men, women, and children?

Speaking of crazy, you perpetually seem unable to recall what you were talking about and attempt to change the subject and then debate with yourself.

We were discussing why the corrupt Lincoln would prefer to consult with the corrupt Butler. Perhaps the corrupt Lincoln thought the corrupt Butler would do a better job than the corrupt Ninian W. Edwards did at Chiriqui. It seems the only qualification one needed to be warmly considered by the corrupt Lincoln was a lack of moral turpitude, and it is possible that the corrupt "Spoons" Butler was even more corrupt and had a greater lack of moral turpitude than Edwards, making his opinion something to be sought after by the corrupt Lincoln.

[nolu chan]

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler

APPENDIX II

Page 588

[1865]

Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,''
ALS, DLC-Butler Papers

[nolu chan]

[Walt to GOPcap 889] Refer to President Lincoln's letter to Governor Andrew of Massachsetts posted earlier in the thread. Giving premanent residence to blacks would relieve a very difficult point.

Here is the RELEVANT part of the Lincoln letter.

As Lincoln makes clear, the scumbag governor of Massachusetts of attempting to import Black bodies from Virginia to put in the U.S. Army and export immediately out of the state. Having created a nearly lily-white state, the scumbag governor now wanted to fill the Massachusetts military quota with Blacks imported from Virginia for that purpose and no other. Walt, "permanent residence" does not mean just long enough to stick someone in a uniform and send them off to get shot at.

Coming down to what I suppose to be the real facts, you are engaged in trying to raise colored troops for the U. S. and wish to take recruits from Virginia, through Washington, to Massachusetts for that object; and the loyal Governor of Virginia, also trying to raise troops for us, objects to you taking his material away; while we, having to care for all, and being responsible alike to all, have to do as much for him, as we would have to do for you, if he was, by our authority, taking men from Massachusetts to fill up Virginia regiments.

[nolu chan]

[CapnR to NonSeq 820] I think it is entirely appropriate for nolu chan to use a sunken, decrepit old sailing vessel as a symbol of the Confederate States government. Nolu has quoted from William C. Davis's Look Away, so I presume he read the book and its devastaing review of the ineptitude of the Confederate leaders.

Cap'n, what is the symbol of California, an S.F. bath house?

That gullible gasbag William C. Davis was whaled into accepting that an unknown Col. C.S. Armee wrote under the pseudonym Charles E.L. Stuart, not recognizing that C.S. Armee abbreviates Confederate States Army and Charles E.L. Stuart was the name of Bonnie Prince Charlie, pretender to the throne of England.

The credibility of that politically correct but gullible gasbag William C. Davis is further called into question by Dr. Ray A. Neff who writes:

For the first published account of Lafayette Baker's encoded assertions, the discovery of the codicil to his will, and the court transcript, see Robert H. Fowler, "Did Stanton Plan Lincoln's Murder?" Civil War Times (august 1961). Fowler, a veteran journalist and founder of Historical Times, Inc., was the periodical's publisher and first editor. Reactions to that issue's content appears in the October and December issues. (The history professor who apparently considered Lincoln's murder a hypothetical case was William S. Baring, University of Florida.) The discovery of the Baker codicil hearing triggered a curious train of events. In 1972 Fowler was succeeded as editor of Civil War Times Illustrated (the title had been lengthened) by twenty-six-year-old William C. Davis. Davis, for no apparent reason other than the private expression by an unnamed Philadelphia City Hall employee of his opinion "that the documents were not genuine and might have been platned there for Fowler to see," generated his own suspicions. These grew to a point where more than twenty years after the 1961 Civil War Times article, he wrote that "many researchers" (himself included?) had sought the hearing record in Philadelphia but could not find it. Even as Davis was publicly declaring that his editorial predecessor had been duped, the transcript was indeed available for study, having been typed by Gina Giordana from the original at Philadelphia City Hall in 1936 under the WPA program, and was filed with the Works Progress Administation Papers as WPA (1936)-400 (1968)--(C. C. 1872). Yet Davis, by that time a prolific writer on Civil War battles, the executive director of Historical Times, Inc., and a Pulitzer Prize nominee, was so convinced that the certifiably authentic Baker codicil hearing transcript was false, he took the unusual step of refuting the material that had so sensationally dominated the August 1961 issue of Civil War Times.

Certainly, a book by William C. Davis is hardly worth the time that would be wasted in reading it, but it may be worth having around to enable a response to those who choose to quote from one of his books, or who misquote from one of his books.

[capitan_refugio]

Funny. I have seen you quote from Davis's footnotes in Look Away, and other works, several times. It's one of the reasons I bought the book.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,''

There is no evidence I've seen that Butler and President Lincoln even met in this time frame. The size of the fonts you use won't change that.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You don't have an interpretation, you have an anecdote.

No Walt. I have an historical letter from Lincoln's attorney general responding to his request to keep Mitchell for pursuing colonization.

It's just as easy to infer that he was providing a sinecure for Mitchell. One letter is simply not enough to hang an interpretation on.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

One could add Indiana (even as late as 1862) or Delaware (1811) to the list of states that prohibited black immigrants.

As well as Virginia (1865), Florida (1865), Mississippi (1865), etc., etc.

[Non-Sequitur]

It was going to use the surplus navy ships that were no longer needed with the war over.

Only 150,000? Gee, that wouldn't make much of a dent, would it? Didn't Butler read the Mitchell memo? I doubt that there would have been enough surplus ships to get 150,000 people plus supplies over there. And did Butle give any thought to what they would do if those 150,000 people said that they didn't want to go?

[Non-Sequitur]

Acually we were discussing the Mitchell memo and your claim that it was the administration 'gameplan'. You and GOP drag Butler in and all I wanted to know was what Butler had that supported your crazy claim. Sending 4 million people overseas was nonsense, especially if they didn't want to go. At least Davis wouldn't have had that problem with his expulsion plans. His victims could walk out of the country.

[Gianni]

Someone has yet to teach you that rape, adultery, murder, theft, keeping children from their parents and keeping persons from Christianity and education are sins as well as major crimes.

Oh good gravy, now you and Walt are going to credit Lincoln with ending rape, adultery, murder, theft, keeping children from their parents and keeping persons from Christianity and education as well?

Boy, sure glad none of those things happen anymore. That Honest Abe truly was quite a character.

[Non-Sequitur]

Care to answer your own question?

No, I'll wait and see your answer. This should be good.

[nolu chan]

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=boolean;c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;sid=9c070de6e8c326cf4c14e65511d42699;rgn=div1;q1=butler;op2=and;q2=hay;op3=and;q3=lincoln;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln8;node=lincoln8%3A875

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler

APPENDIX II

Page 588

[1865]

Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,''
ALS, DLC-Butler Papers