Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Southern Pride - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 09:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC,

   Yeah right,

   I did not get any of my information from lewrockwell.com. I went to the site and could not find any of the information I supposedly copied and pasted. If you notice I cited the works from the books they came from and I provided the website addresses where they were used. If you need any more sources I can easily provided them apart from the LewRockwell.com.

   I gather from your lack of response you have no sources to support any of your arguements or to answer any of the questions I asked. From you lack of response I take it my points are valid.

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)

  



 Posted: Fri Jul 7th, 2006 10:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Can't we all just get along ;)



 Posted: Sat Jul 8th, 2006 01:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

burnsideshot,

Why have these discussions if we could all get along would we? If someone is going to questions ones' sources or postition they could at least give some coherent arguement back.

Have fun

Shadowrebel (John)


 

Last edited on Sat Jul 8th, 2006 01:04 pm by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sat Jul 8th, 2006 04:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Really? Maybe great minds think alike...

You wrote:
"When Maryland voiced its support for the CSA and appeared itself ready to secede, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of Baltimore (the nation’s 3rd largest city at the time), and a US Congressman from Maryland, as well as numerous editors and publishers.As noted Lincoln scholar Mark Neely writes in The Last Best Hope of Earth, Lincoln arrested the Marylanders "without much agonizing over their constitutionality" (p 133)."

Here's how it appears at http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html:
"When Maryland voiced its support for the CSA and appeared itself ready to secede, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of Baltimore (the nation’s 3rd largest city at the time), and a US Congressman from Maryland, as well as numerous editors and publishers....As noted Lincoln scholar Mark Neely writes in The Last Best Hope of Earth, Lincoln arrested the Marylanders "without much agonizing over their constitutionality" (p 133)."


You claimed to write:
"Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53)."

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html:
"Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53). "


You 'authored':
"John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the  opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law. "

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html says:
"John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law"

 

Perhaps it's all just a coincidence,
HankC



 Posted: Sat Jul 8th, 2006 09:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Nice try but please use what is on LewRockwell complete not just sections.

Should one also overlook Lincoln’s destruction of the rule of law in "loyal" Maryland? When Maryland voiced its support for the CSA and appeared itself ready to secede, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of Baltimore (the nation’s 3rd largest city at the time), and a US Congressman from Maryland, as well as numerous editors and publishers.

Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53). John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law. Additionally, US Army troops refused to release Merryman into the custody of a federal marshal sent by Taney pursuant to the court order that Merryman be freed.

Not the way it was in my post as I took it directly form the Charles Adams and the Mark Neeley books as noted in my post. You contend I wrote my post as my own words, you will note I give full credit to the authors of the books they came from as I apparently Mr. Dieteman did. The rest of my post give the websites the information is from. I never claimed credit for the information or to be the souce of the information. You can find that information in that form of several other websites.

Do you dispute any of the historical facts of the post? If you dispute the facts please state why.

Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sat Jul 8th, 2006 11:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 Are you saying that the 3 snippets are *your* words?

Which words are yours?

Which are Dieteman's?

Which are Neely's?

Which are Adams'?

Please be specific...

 

HankC



 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2006 02:55 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
fight4right
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jun 19th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 9
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

First of all, Tom, what a great post.

Lincoln.  A very interesting man even if you don't agree with his tactics.  As has been said, he was just a man doing the best he could.  I think we forget how politics works.  Forgive the following description, but, it is not black and white.  No matter what way you look at it, this war was over slavery, indirectly or not.  The state right that always comes to question in the explanations given by the states is slavery.  All of the states that succeeded were slave states.  I agree, Lincoln was more worried with keeping the Union together than abolishing slavery.  He used the emancipation proclamation to boost Northern fervor in a time when the country's  morale was at an all time low and people were sick of war and needed a reminder of why they were killing, their brothers, cousins, friends.  But, Lincoln also had a personal stake in it.  He had been meeting with frederick Douglas and many other black men and inviting them to political functions at the White House as guests, something never done before.  I think he truly believed in freeing the slaves.  But, let us think of this rationally for a moment.  The whole southern economy was based upon slavery.  About 4% of the south made 90 something % of the wealth.  On their plantations, with slave labor.  No matter how you look at it, the south would be, and was destroyed, in a sense if/when slavery ended.  Lincoln was no fool.  He did not want to destroy the south.  He wanted to save the Union and find a better way.  It is easier to ease someone into a new way of life than to thrust it in their face and say deal with it.  Hence, he wanted to slowly rid the country of slavery.  Was that fast enough for everyone?  No.  But he was trying to cut down on the animosity between the Northern and Southern states and make everyone happy by compensating those in the south that drove the economy.  Not a perfect plan, but that is politics.  Sometimes you gotta compromise.

Next.  Let's tackle the issue of a colony of former slaves in Africa.  Again, Lincoln is not a stupid guy.  He knew the animosity there would be between Southerner's and their former property after they were freed.  He was obviously right, hence the KKK, segregation, etc.  So his solution, it would be best for the former Slaves to be somewhere else where they could start over.  Again, not a perfect solution.  Most of these men and women were born here in the US, it was their home and they did not want to leave it no matter how hard life would become.  Were the Northern free from prejudice?  No.  But I think this had more to do with other issues than race.  Heck, look at when the Irish came over, and other Anglo-Saxons from Europe.   They were also hated.  Not because of the color of their skin, but because they competed for jobs, property, mates, whatever.  This goes way deeper than skin color, it is just that was the most notable feature of the slaves and they stuck out like a sore thumb.  Plus, I am sure many Norhterners had never seen a person of color.  We all know the fear of the unknown.  Heck, I grew up in a town with one guy that was half-mexican and that was the only cultural diversity we had.  I graduated in the 1990s.  When I went to college, it was a bit of a cultural shock.  My black friends used to laugh their a**es off because I didn't know what ashy or nappy was.  I was raised to be accepting, not all people are so lucky.  But, I digress. 

Lincoln was trying to be moderate to appease many different people with many different ideas of what was right.  Not so different from today.  We can look back 140 years and say, "They should have...".   But,  I know everyone else can see what I am doing wrong with my life but me.  It is easy to chastize others without having walked in their shoes.  Lincoln was in a hell of a spot and I don't at all envy his position.  I think he was the best man for the job.  The worst thing that ever happened to the SOUTH was his death.  He was the one who wanted the southerners to not be punished for the rebellion, he staved off many executions.  He just wanted the Union to remain intact and not let anger destroy such a worthy nation built on such high principles.  Principles that we were not adhering to by allowing slavery to thrive.  He had a plan for reconstruction for the south while so many in his cabinet, and his VP, just wanted to punish the them, not bring them back into the family.  Have you ever seen such terms as those given to Lee and Johnston when they surrendered.  For god sakes, what more could the south ask for?  The men got to go home and take care of their familites.  They were not tried for treachery and rebellion, which would have been totally understandable if the north had.

Lincoln did have his faults, I agree.  He broke many laws, but war is not pretty.  It is not PC.  It is not an agreeable state of affairs.  Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.  These were taken on the part of the North and the South.  No one was free of sin.  They were doing the best they could with what they had.  Being driven by their own consciences'.  That is all we have at the end of the day.  The only person you truly have to live with is yourself.  So be true to that inner voice...

Nicolette



 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2006 07:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC,

You wrote
Oh, please...If you are merely going to cut and paste from LewRockwell.com, I can just read it there, if I were so inclined...

You are now asking about what you are calling "3 snippets", which are three historical events. First you imply that my whole post is from Lewrockwell.com, now you say three snippets. These historical events are neither my words, Adam's, Neely's, or Dieteman's they are events you can find in any number of places.

But, for amusement; you can find the Taney reference in the Adam's book and the Neely book the Maryland arrests. Marshall is in "Give Me Liberty vol 1" page 261 by Eric Foner. Taney is also in the Maryland records as ExParte Merryman 17 F. Case 144 C.C.D. Maryland 1861a matter of public record. Marshall ruling is 5 U.S. 137 also a matter of public record. While there is no public number attached to the Maryland arrest it also is well documented.

Again this are historical events, nothing more nothing less, I was only give burnsideshot an answer to his question not giving my opinion. Now you answer my question you seem unwilling to. Are the historical facts correct? You seem to imply that they are not so, your expert rebuffing of them would be of interest and make you one of the great historians of all-time.

Have fun

Shadowrebel

Last edited on Sun Jul 9th, 2006 10:58 pm by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2006 08:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Tom and Nicolette,

Your replies are exactly what my point to burnsideshot is. People of the North have a way of bending the truth. I am as a Northener embarrassed at times by this.

My point about the slaves was that the North contends they were much better off than before slavery, which the only had it marginal better, if you listen to the North they had everything they wanted.

The suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland occurred on rumors that Maryland might leave the Union with no firm proof. In the case you cite Maryland was neither in rebellion or under invasion making this a moot arguement for Lincoln doing it legally.

The North teached that Lincoln freed the slaves, he did not. You sugarcoat it by saying the Emancipation Proclamation "paved the way for the freedom of millions",what paved the way for this was the North winning the war and during its' assmilation of the conquered territory forcing the former state to accept the 13th Amendment to be back in the Union.

I have read Lincoln, "The Language of Liberty, The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln" by Joseph R. Fornieri and find he change his opinion depending on his political needs. If you wish to start another thread on this I will gladly elabortate.

The point about Grant and Lee owning slaves is that the North wanted to end slavery then what was their lead general doing with slaves, I know his wifes slave, in the family. As for Lee, his were willed to him and according to the will were to be freed in five years or 1862. He was bound by the terms of the will.

I agree that there is plenty of source regarding all of this. But the question was the source of the Southern bitterness. A good part of it is the North postiton of having no evil and making Lincoln god like.

I have not even mentioned the rebel battle flag.

If the North would just admit the shortcoming and not sugarcoat them, while putting down the South maybe the South could giveup it fight.

You both have fine points and I am only playing devils advocate here. I mean no disrepect, in fact I agree with many of your point. Particularly the education and understanding parts. It is time for both side to let it become part of history and not a continuing war.

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)

Last edited on Sun Jul 9th, 2006 08:12 pm by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2006 09:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I've stayed out of this one, but I can't help but recommend that all should read this article. IMO, it's a realistic look at the "state's right" vs. slavery issue.



 Posted: Sun Jul 9th, 2006 11:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal,

An excellent article thank you. The Pennsylvania federal marshall incident happened in my home town and is still the biggest part of civil war era history in my neck of the words.

The only problem I have with the thread is that is has gone far off what it was started for, which burnsideshot ask why the South was bitter. I hope we can get back to answering a fellow members question.

Thanks again

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 12:00 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Actually, I don't think that's what Burnside asked in the original thread - or at least that wasn't the main point. Seems to me he was asking why the South insists on saying that the North has re-written history, and to be honest I see alot of that right here in this thread.

John, you seem to insinuate that the blacks under reconstruction had it no better than they did as slaves. You need to understand how difficult that is for some of us to swallow. We all understand that we didn't make a jump from slavery to equal rights. But to say they had it no better just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Let's keep in mind that they were no longer in shackles, beaten according to the whims of their "masters", and no longer left to watch as wives and daughters were abused both physically and sexually, again at the whim of their "masters". You dispute that a Northern victory laid the path to freedom, but I would ask what a Southern victory would have led to.

Forgive me if I refer to things that are not in this paticular thread, but in others we've had along the same lines, but I've seen an awful lot of talk about "the north previously had slavery too." That may be true, but there's a few differences. First, I don't hear many northerners denying that. I don't hear them justifying it, or attempting to validate the actions of their ancestors. Fact is, I hear most of them just saying "true, they did, and that was wrong". I'm at a loss as to why Southerners have such a hard time saying that. Second, I don't recall the "North" ever going to war and accepting the deaths of hundreds of thousands simply so they could preserve their barbaric practice. Only the South did that.

It may be obvious by now that I believe the war WAS about slavery. I spent decades studying the subject and reading the writings of the very people proclaimed by Southerners as pioneers before I reached that conclusion. They make it clear. The reason I recommended the article previously was that to me it showed that the South manipulated the term State's Rights so that it applied to slavery, but that they proved hypocritical when it came to applying the theory in a broader sense. And that to me is re-writing history, which of course is where I believe the thread started.

Playing Devil's Advocate is all well and good - I know I do it on a frequent basis - but history shouldn't be re-written in the attempt. The northern victory led to reconstruction, which was better than slavery. Reconstruction led to Civil rights, which was better than reconstruction. Civil rights led us to where we are, which is not where we should be, but light-years away from where we would be if the South had it's way.

In the end, I really appreciate the thoughtful and passionate posts, from SR, Hank, Fight, Burnside, Calcav, Michael  and all others. On many other boards, this thread would have gone to hell in a handbasket by now. Just my opinion - you may now resume your regularly scheduled discussion ;)

Last edited on Mon Jul 10th, 2006 12:02 am by javal1



 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 05:14 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I am trying to understand why people who are into the Southern aspects of the civil war try to convince others that Northerners have rewritten history.  Can they just not get over the fact that the stronger of the two nations took the road paved to victory?  I respect the South, but dislike the bitterness that goes along with it.  What is the reason for this?
Javal,

This is the original post that I took as asking why the South was bitter, I do not think I got the question wrong. If I did my mistake.

As for slavery being as good or better than Negroes after the war I never said that, only that one of the things that make the South bitter is the North claim that because they ended slavery and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 the Negroes had it far better and were treated far better. They were treated marginal better and had no where near the rights the North claimed and in fact could not settle in many Nothern areas. No they did not have it  as bad, but only sightly better. Freedom without the rights and privilages of the free is still a form of slavery.

I repeat my stance that slavery in any form is and was wrong and not worth fighting for according to our modern thinking. Remember there was a completely different way of thinking for a long time, no it was not right then either. Just the way it was. I agree with your progress.

I hope I have clarified my thoughts.

Thanks

John

Last edited on Mon Jul 10th, 2006 05:16 am by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 02:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Alright, I have been watching this post now for answers, and I like the response.  Actually, I am fairly new to the whole civil war study and that is why my question was so basic.  First, let me say while the original intent was not to stir anything up, I am seeing a lot of passion.  I think a lot comes out when people have differing opinions.  I really appreciate all the feedback on my questions.

To clarify, you are both right.  My question was 2 fold.  I'm starting to understand better about both the slavery issue and why the South seems bitter in saying that the North is rewriting history.  Those were my 2 questions.  I became interested when I read after learning how wonderful Lincoln was my whole life, that his motives were very different than what I had understood them to be.  I learned this while living in the South.  I'm not Lincoln bashing, but I was a little disappointed.  The threads posted in reply demonstrate this fact.  Afterall, I guess we cannot assume that Lincoln would have been anything over the career politicians we still see today.  I have heard that the 1864 presidential campaign was just as mudslinging and rough as todays campaigns are.  I found that interesting too.  I am upset at never being taught that Lincoln imprisoned those that disagreed with him.  I am starting to feel as though I was cheated by the Northern education system on this one topic.  Perhaps these steps were necessary, or perhaps, they were authoritarian.  I don't even care.  I just want the facts. 

Is it true that Lincoln originally just wanted to end the expansion of slavery as we are taught, and then as things progressed, it became evident the only solution was to make the war about slavery and end up ending it nation-wide upon reunion of the states? 

I am interested that it seems from the posts that the South, if bitter at all, is more bitter by principle than pride.  Originally, I thought they they still couldn't get over the blow...the loss.  I look at America, and I see a VERY patriotic South.  The North is looking more like it is going against the traditions of America now.  And of course, I am a Northerner...and a patriotic one, so I am by no means lumping everyone together.  Thank you everyone for your posts.  They are most informative.  I'm posting another topic later that I'm interested in hearing responses to as well. It is general again and will either be posted under the battles and campaign section or this one.  It involves Sherman and I have been curious about it for a LONG TIME!  Thanks

Jessica

Last edited on Mon Jul 10th, 2006 04:26 pm by burnsideshot



 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 04:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Shadowrebel wrote: HankC,

You wrote
Oh, please...If you are merely going to cut and paste from LewRockwell.com, I can just read it there, if I were so inclined...
You are now asking about what you are calling "3 snippets", which are three historical events. First you imply that my whole post is from Lewrockwell.com, now you say three snippets. These historical events are neither my words, Adam's, Neely's, or Dieteman's they are events you can find in any number of places.

 

The words I used, from your first reply to me, are taken exactly and without attribution from another writer. That's not exactly a good lead to the rest of your presentation ;) Any tint of plageriasm throws great doubt on the entire...

When you wrote, or rather when you lifted from Dieteman, "see Charles Adams, p 46-53", I assume you mean Charles *Francis* Adams, but which of his many books?

Also in your cherry-picking of evidence from the UMKC law site about the 13th amendment it is curious that you ignored the snippet directly above that which you *did* use, to wit:

Was the Civil War about slavery?

The short answer is "yes."  One might consider, for example, Mississippi's 21-paragraph declaration of reasons in 1861 for leaving the Union.  Only two paragraphs, one introductory and the other conclusory, did not mention slavery.  The state's principal complaints concerned the refusal of free states to return fugitive slaves and opposition of the extension of slavery into the territories.  The election of Abraham Lincoln, on an anti-slavery platform, obviously had a lot to do with the decisions of southern states to secede as well. 
The best evidence that "states' rights" was a secondary interest of the southern states is the Confederate Constitution which forced states to accept central authority on the issue of slavery and required all new territories in the Confederation to become slave states, regardless of the popular will of the people of the new state.


As far as "The North teached that Lincoln freed the slaves, he did not", many people have reached that conclusion without being so "teached".

Do you have any references to textbooks with the actual 'teachings' you love to hate or is it only anecdotal?

 

HankC





 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 11:03 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC,

You can not have "plageriasm" when discussing historical events that are a matter of public record. Where did I say I "love to hate" what is taught about Lincoln?

As for the "Great Emacipator" and "Honest Abe" both are well known nicknames attached to Lincoln. For a textbook try Ordeal by Fire, The Civil War and Reconstruction page 320-321 "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history....The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation....The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stromy present....As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew....In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free.... We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. (Basler, Works of Lincoln, V, 537) the textbook is used in Civil War classes at the college level and is written by James M. McPherson, You may have heard of him, I think he is a Pulitzer Prize winning author and a Professor Emeritus, at Pinceton University. I would think he knows a little about the Civil War and Reconstruction, don't you. I am not going to go out and lookup every textbook in the world since no matter what I provide you, in my opinion based on what you have said so far, you will never be satisfied. I will stand by McPherson and we both know what is taught and has be taught in the past about Lincoln.

You still have not responded to: Now you answer my question you seem unwilling to. Are the historical facts correct? You seem to imply that they are not so, your expert rebuffing of them would be of interest and make you one of the great historians of all-time.

Since you will not respond I guess you have no response and only seem to want to make fun of what I wrote unless you respond to the question I will not long be addressing you replies. I have no more time to deal with a ........whatever. So either answer the question and if the answer is no, document it or get off my back.

Shadowrebel

 



 Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 11:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Please take the portion of this thread dealing with sources to private e-mail. Thank you.



 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 12:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal,

No problem.

Thanks

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 02:50 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
olemiss50
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jul 10th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To the victor goes the spoils.  As southerners, we are completely aware of the reasons we lost the war.  Personally, I feel that we do not disagree with why the war was lost.  We lost and we all know that and that to me, is not the area for a bitter taste to form.  Where the area of friction lies, is within in the cause.  The reasons our ancestors enlisted has become a topic of controversy.  Basically, we cannot show pride in our military heritage like those of the north.  If we do, we find ourselves the victims of ridicule (racist, pro-slavery, etc) and we immediately become supporters of slavery.  Slavery is one of the most misunderstood topics in American history and as a result, we suffer.  Reasons for losing the war has not been rewritten.  The reasons for fighting, the right of secession, consent of the governed, and the history of slavery, fireeaters, and radical abolitionism has been allowed to be written off by the victors.  It would be the same if Great Britian crushed the rebellion of 1775 and they would have written their version of the story.  I think I'm correct in saying their version would be slightly different from the American version.  And rightfully so.  They are going to put their version in good light (not saying it is not), or in a way that allows them to justify their cause.  I do not think the Union would try and justify the Southern cause after victory.  It is simply a matter of justifying so much death, destruction, and bloodshed.  We as southerners try to do the same, it just does not work out for us very well.  Our cause gets pushed away because if we were to somehow justify our cause to the public, what would that mean for the Northern cause.  It would be moot.  I hope this made sense.  To the victor goes the spoils.

-Jake Todd



 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 01:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Jake,

I agree with you.  Of course Northerners have told their story as victors and in part due to slavery, Southerners have not  had that opportunity.  In essence, slavery has given the South a bad name.  I think this is ridiculous personally.  While yes, slavery may not be right, at one point, it probably was quite necessary.  Without it, who knows what would have happened to the mainly agricultural South of the time.  What I didn't realize until college was how small of a percentage of Southerners actually owned slaves.  Aside from that, the South was not a wealth of industry and they were not as well connected by rails as the North.  In all, it was a totally different time, and if we get stuck in this modern day mindset, none of it will ever make sense.  Jake, you make a lot of sense to me.  Thanks for your opinions and comments.

Jessie  :)



 Current time is 10:07 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2309 seconds (13% database + 87% PHP). 25 queries executed.