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: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 05:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
61st Post
burnsideshot
Member


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

  back to top

Ok, Ok...By the way John, thanks for the kind words.  I'll put into words what is so awesome about you guys.  I thought of it after I posted the last comment.  It's like you beat eachother up and then give eachother a great big hug with your closing... sort of like..."yeah man, I just nailed you in the face and now you need reconstructive surgery and I'm rather glad I did it, too.  It actually felt GREAT you [url=mailto:$&#@#$]$&#@#$[/url]!!! but I still love you!!!!"  Hence the cheers, respectfully, have a great day etc... I laugh every time!!! :?  :D



 Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 07:43 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
62nd Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Think of this board as a "cyber-fight club"

But don't talk about it. ;) 

That's the first rule.



 Posted: Fri Jul 21st, 2006 02:44 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
63rd Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

How's that working out for you? ;)



 Posted: Fri Jul 21st, 2006 06:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
64th Post
TimHoffman01
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 9th, 2005
Location: Mechanicsville, Virginia USA
Posts: 74
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

So far this thread has seemed to revolve more along the differing ideas concerning the role of slavery than on other things that I think irritate Southerners (and a number of northerners as well to be fair) just as much.

Example here would be the constant mentions of how terrible conditions were at Andersonville in Georgia.   Granted, they were as bad as some of the nastiest Concentration camps in a later war would prove to be, but what is often left out is the fact that things were almost as bad for the guards as for the inmates.  The main reson they did better is that they could get food from the townspeople.  The Confederate supply system was just about inoperative during the late war.

Contrast that to Camp Douglass in Chicago or Elmira in New York state.  The north generally didn't have anywhere close to the supply issues the south did yet both of these camps had worse death rates than did Andersonville.  They are almost never mentioned.  Yet there are recorded instances of critical supplies being witheld from the prisoners on purpose, rather than just not receiving enough to go around.

I heard about Andersonville all through my US history classes in middle and high schools.  Didn't hear about the others until my Professor brought them up in college (in PA incidentally).  Ironically she did so to show where, as the saying often goes, "the Victors write the history books."  The northern camps weren't mentioned in the text, but you can guess which one was.

Secession itself has an interesting history.  I recently encountered an ultimatum delivered by a group of New England states in 1814.  I need to do some more research here, but it seems they either DID or threatened to Secceed from the Union unless hostilities with England ceased during the war of 1812.  Seems it wasn't good for their shipping business or somesuch.  The article was vague but it seems they delivered their notice just as word of the Treaty of Ghent came in (ending the war) so nothing came of it.



 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 02:01 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
65th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

HankC,

Thank you for your reply to my post. I think you and I have a misunderstanding of my post I wish to try and clear up. I am responding to Jessie, who started this post as follows:
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?
She is clearly asking three questions; 1)  why people who are into the Southern aspects of the civil war try to convince others that Northerners have rewritten history  2)Can they just not get over the fact that the stronger of the two nations took the road paved to victory? 3)I respect the South, but dislike the bitterness that goes along with it.  What is the reason for this?

As to question two I will let her decide that one. My posts deal with the other two questions and IMHO can only be answered by using Southern thinking, writings, and words. This is why my sources are based on Southern sources. I think the South has some valid reasons for the way they think and some of their thinking is not valid. My personnal thoughts are not neccessary to answer Jessie. I give Jessie full credit for being intelligent and quite able to realize that the Southern sources are bias toward the South and can compare them to what she knows of Northern views and decide where the truth is. She also knows she can ask questions here and get answers to them. All Civil War souces, IMHO, both North and South are bias. If you can show her answers to her questions without using Southern souces by all means post them to help her understanding. I hope I have made my reasons clear, if not please ask me to explain better.:)  Now as to your reply.

I have many sources and try to match them to the subject I am posting to. I never assume my sources are perfect and am willing to add more. By a free thinking I mean I can look at a subject from all sides with an open mind and decide for myself what my beliefs are.
For example, at http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm, the writer purports "I was with him [Lee] at the first battle of Bull Run, second battle of Bull Run, first battle of Manassas, second battle of Manassas...". Do you see anything incorrect with this statement that may throw this man's eyewitness testimony into doubt?
I am aware that the battles of Bull Run and Manassas are the same and Lee while not participating in the first Bull Run, did go there after the battle. My use of his story was what I quoted about Lee freeing his slaves which is backed up by other souces:
Before the Civil War, Robert E. Lee freed most of his slaves and offered to pay expenses for those who wanted to go to Liberia. In November 1853, Lee's former slaves William and Rosabella Burke and their four children sailed on the Banshee, which left Baltimore with 261 emigrants. (source:http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam004.html) which is a link to the Library of Congress Resouce Guide to the Study of Black History & Culture. If he fails in part of his memory, but other portions can be verified elsewhere I feel it has merit. The slaves Lee owned from his father-in-law I have addressed before.


Using "One of Grant’s slave’s name was William Jones.." taken from an SCV web site filled with oversights, omissions and errors shows a lack of critical thinking. Note that the SCV site does not mention that William Jones was freed by Grant in March 1859. Certainly, for periods in her life, Julia Dent Grant used four slaves. Whether she, or her father, owned them is still unclear. They did live in Missouri and either emancipated themselves or were freed when Missouri banned slavery prior to the 13th amendment...

My use of this was to show that Grant owned slave, which he clearly did, and that these slaves were held after Lee freed his, something the North does not like to admit. As to my using this site as lack of critical thinking because the site is "filled with oversights, omissions and errors" as I stated above it is the Southern view that is important to this thread and it does show critical thinking on my part to use information that will give Jessie a sense of Southern thinking. In her autobiograhy Julia Dent Grant admits owning the slaves and claims to have freed them after the Emanciaption Proclamation, yet states that at least one named Julia was with her throughout the war. Some source claim thay were not freed until after the war. Since not postive evidence can be found to when they were freed I am open to using her biography.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm makes the usual apologist mistake of equating slaves 'serving' with blacks 'fighting' and uses the easily rebuffed statement that "Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam "…

I have never used this statement about Jackson in any post here and do not understand why you say I did?

Your conclusion that secession is *legal* because Lincoln used 'secede' in a sentence is quite a stretch. I'm sure Lincoln used the word 'murder' in sentences as well, but that did not make it legal. Regardless, 'seceding' and 'being in rebellion' are not mutually exclusive.


I never formed the conclusion, nor stated, it that secession is "legal" because Lincoln used secede in a sentence. While seceding and being in rebellion are different statuses they could be linked together. I included this Lincoln statement as another example of  the South citing Northern myth and to show that Lincoln at least once admitted he knew the South had seceded whether he meant illegally or legally only he knows.

Here is a web site providing an overview of the annealing of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation and freedom. It's full of contemporary 'sound bites' and historical analysis: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/content_inside.asp?ID=27&subjectID=3


I am not sure of your use of "annealing", however this site falls into your category of "oversights, omissions and errors" where is the facts showing Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist mentioned. “If all earthly power were given me. I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,--to their own native land” (Fornieri 158).  “Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not” (Fornieri 159). “Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social quality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not now combating the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are already amongst us; but I am combating what is set up as moral argument for allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been—arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which where it already exists we must of necessity, manage as we best can” (Fornieri 169). These are from a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854.

.“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality, an inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say in this connection, that I do not perceive, however, that man is to have the superior position, that it requires the negro should be denied everything. I do not perceive because I do not court a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just leave her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and certainly never have had a black woman either for a slave or wife, so that it seems to me that it is quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men” (Fornieri 369). This is from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, the Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston on September 18, 1858. All of this is found in  The Language of Liberty, The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln by Joseph R. Fornieri, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology at the pages mentioned.

Clearly a site like A project of The Lincoln Institute , is bias toward Lincoln.

I hope I have made myself clear. There are as mentioned by TimHoffman other issue I would like to address to answer to help Jessie. You have still not anwsered my questions from about my first post which is Are the historical fact correct? You have never answered this question.

Thank you for the debate and have a great weekend.

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 02:03 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
66th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

Tim,

Good post, I am trying to answer Jessie's questions and do not seem to be able to get away from slavery and Lincoln. As you point out there are other issues involved and I am working on them. Where in Pa did you go to school?

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 02:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
67th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

Jessie,

That is what debating is all about. Having different opinions and expressing them, a sort of point counterpoint deal. To the important part, have you found any answers to your questions and formed any opinions about what has been posted and is there anything you would like to ask for others to answer?

Have a great weekend.

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 02:58 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
68th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


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

  back to top

John,

Realizing this thread may have deviated from it's original intent, I'd like your opinion of the following:

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to “lay it on well,” an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover. —Wesley Norris, interviewed 1866; reprinted in John W. Blassingame (ed.): Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies. ISBN 0-8071-0273-3



 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 01:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
69th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

Javal,

All slave owners of any time were cruel just be keeping slaves. Some were more cruel than others. If the account is true then Lee was amongest the more cruel in this case. Was this an isolated case by him of this type of behavior toward his slaves or did he do this repeatedly? Are there any other records of this event to backup his testimony? Remember I have not say I agree or disagreee with anything in my post, only gave my reasons for posting what I did. I sincerely hope I am right in posting, within what the thread is about, what I have leaving out any personnal feelings.

That said within the time period this was a typical way to deal with runaway slaves both in the North and South. Taking the time frame, the time from founding the country until the war,  into account and not modern day thinking. He was right, as any owner would have been, to take the steps necessary to assure their property remained his and followed his orders. That simply was the way it was with slavery from the beginning of slavery in the world dating to the earliest records of slavery. We, using mondern thinking, can not pass judgement on this subject as we have never been in their position to deal with the conditions prevalent of another time. Feeling slavery was wrong is not passing judgement as long as you understand that during its' time thats how the world was. If we were in that period how many honestly could feel as we do today?

Now that I am going to get it for these statements I repeat slavery was wrong whenever it occurred and by whom ever it was used at any period in history. I understand the attitudes of the past without having to past judgement on the past. I accept that attitudes and event in history were different then in my time just as my time 140 years from now will be judged by a different standard and may not be looked upon with as having the high moral standards we give it. Would it be interesting to see how we are judged by history?

Regards

John



 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 06:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
70th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

Javel,

I have had time to research your post since returning from my morning chores. Several things strike me as odd about it. 1) The source National Anti-Slavery Standard, April 14, 1866 would love to tarnish Lee. 2) Would Wesley Norris, a former slave, refer to Lee as General? Not likely, most former slave refer to the masters as just that master in one form or the other. 3) The statement is given in quite excellent English, hardly the words of an uneducated slave, I can find no reference to Norris being that well educated The only thing I can find is that The Custis and Lee families provided their slaves with a rudimentary education, spending money, and specialized medical care.(source: .http://www.nps.gov/arho/tour/research/powerofplace.html) which is from the Nationl Park Services. I can not find it in any other form except the one you used. This may indicated the words are not Norris's but, someone used his name to write the account. 4) It is highly unlikely a county constable would have been called in to do the whipping. If the overseer would not apply the whip he would not have applied brine to inflict further pain.

Add to this the following: On June 24, 1859, the New York Daily Tribune published two anonymous letters (dated June 19, 1859[8] and June 21, 1859[9]), each of which claimed to have heard that Lee had had the Norrises whipped, and went so far as to claim that Lee himself had whipped the woman when the officer refused to. Douglas S. Freeman, in his 1934 biography of Lee, described the letters to the Tribune as "Lee's first experience with the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators" and asserted that "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing." Michael Fellman, in The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000) (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee) Which is contrast with: Michael Fellman, in The Making of Robert E. Lee (2000), found the claims that Lee had personally whipped Mary Norris "extremely unlikely," but not at all unlikely that Lee had had the slaves whipped: "corporal punishment (for which Lee substituted the euphemism 'firmness') was an instrinsic and necessary part of slave discipline. Although it was supposed to be applied only in a calm and rational manner, overtly physical domination of slaves, unchecked by law, was always brutal and potentially savage."[11] (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee)

With the exception of the Norris interview there is no evidence I can find Lee every whipped slaves. I still stand by my last post that if Lee did this he is among the worse of the slave owner. I find it highly unlike this account is true given Lee's attitude about slaves and the lack of any other comfirmation of the account. If provided more compelling information of this event I will surely reconsider the truth of the account.



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Jul 25th, 2006 02:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
76th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

Indy,

Thank you for your reply. If you are going quote me please use the entire quote:

Here is a web site providing an overview of the annealing of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation and freedom. It's full of contemporary 'sound bites' and historical analysis: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/content_inside.asp?ID=27&subjectID=3


Clearly a site like A project of The Lincoln Institute , is bias toward Lincoln.

My response to the website was as follows: I am not sure of your use of "annealing", however this site falls into your category of "oversights, omissions and errors" where is the facts showing Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist mentioned. “If all earthly power were given me. I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,--to their own native land” (Fornieri 158).  “Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not” (Fornieri 159). “Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social quality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not now combating the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are already amongst us; but I am combating what is set up as moral argument for allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been—arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which where it already exists we must of necessity, manage as we best can” (Fornieri 169). These are from a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854.

.“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality, an inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say in this connection, that I do not perceive, however, that man is to have the superior position, that it requires the negro should be denied everything. I do not perceive because I do not court a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just leave her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and certainly never have had a black woman either for a slave or wife, so that it seems to me that it is quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men” (Fornieri 369). This is from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, the Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston on September 18, 1858. All of this is found in  The Language of Liberty, The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln by Joseph R. Fornieri, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology at the pages mentioned.

Clearly a site like A project of The Lincoln Institute , is bias toward Lincoln.


Shows that he was racist? I don't even know where to begin with discussing this. There's so many different directions to go here, that I'm not even going to bother.

Apparently you do not think Lincoln was a racist? See the above quotes from him.

Which brings me to this:
I'm so glad you have cleared that up. I guess we'll all have to avoid any book, website, or any other media outlet that might be biased. That leaves out such accomplished writers as McPherson, Foote, and even Ed Bearss.

I suppose that would include such books as those by the Kennedy Brothers, Charles Adams, and Thomas DiLorenzo. We'll also have to ignore the websites of Lew Rockwell and the 37th Texas Cavalry as these are all anti-Lincoln and/or pro-south. We'll pretty much have to ignore everyone since everyone is biased one way or another.

We should also probably ignore what the most important African-American of the era had to say about Lincoln in a speech he gave after Lincoln's death, because, well, he's biased towards Lincoln:

I was not the one who said you should not use sources that contain "oversights, omissions and errors". I was merely pointing out that the site I was given as overview of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation, and freedom was full of oversights, omissions, and errors.

As for "spliting hairs" no I said Lincoln did not free the slaves, any slaves. He freed the slaves in Southern held areas which he had no control over, he might as well have freed the slaves in the Brazil and the West Indes. In areas he had control of he did nothing to free the slaves.

March 29 1859: Despite the financial troubles of the Grant family, there is one remedy Grant refuses to consider. He sets free his slave, William Jones, who had come to him through his wife's family.

I never disputed this, what I said is he owned slaves after Lee. This is even in Julia Dent Grant's autobiography.

Evidently you're overrating this ruling from 1803 as I've not seen it mentioned as the end all be all of whether or not the President can't suspend Habeas.

I do not overrate this ruling since it shows that "the end all be all" of suspension of Habeas, is the Constitution, which clearly allows only Congress to suspend, not the President.

One criticism is that Lamon is an unreliable source, remembered for lending his name to a ghost-written 1872 biography of Lincoln by Chauncey Black. The biography was received unfavorably by Robert Todd Lincoln, the president's son, and was denounced for a lack of discretion. On the other hand, the habeas corpus manuscript was written in the mid 1880's around the time Lamon was working on his second book, Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, incomplete when he died (Lamon's daughter edited the completed portions of it for posthumous publication). This second book is highly regarded among Lincoln scholars and is the main source for many well-known Lincoln anecdotes and quotes. Another criticism is that no copy of the warrant or other documentation has been found to support Lamon's story. Some critics have also questioned the likelihood of placing such an important task in Lamon's hands, though Lincoln often sent Lamon on important political tasks including a famous 1865 mission to Virginia that resulted in his absence as a bodyguard on the night of Lincoln's assassination.

Lamon as unreliable souce is a stretch at best. Clearly anything written that shows Lincoln in an unfavorable light would be recieved unfavorably by his son and having a lack of discretion does not make one an unreliable souce. As you show his second book, written at the time of the manuscript, is highly regarded. Since the warrent was never served it being destroyed is the logical reason it can not be found. What task is more important than bodyguard to President Lincoln? If he was deemed to be that trusted with his life by Lincoln why not arresting Taney? What critics and how many?

We should also probably ignore what the most important African-American of the era had to say about Lincoln in a speech he gave after Lincoln's death, because, well, he's biased towards Lincoln:

 

Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict.
"bringing them safely through that conflict" Safely at the cost of over 600,000 lives. Not what I would call safely.

We'll pretty much have to ignore everyone since everyone is biased one way or another.


I believe I said something along those lines,  "All Civil War souces, IMHO, both North and South are bias" in my post of Fri Jul 21st, 2006 10:01 pm.

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)

Last edited on Tue Jul 25th, 2006 02:54 am by Shadowrebel



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Jul 26th, 2006 12:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
78th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

Indy,

Thank you for your reply to my post. Now don't tell me you are going soft on me :D. I except you and HankC to keep me on my feet. Ok now to your post. I am not going to quote much of your post I do not think I need to for a reply.

It seem we have some common ground to agree upon, unbelievable. I agree that the 3 Constitutional amendements are not much for showing Lincoln as a racist and those alone are not what I based that statement on. I argee Lincoln for political reasons change his story depending on his needs. All smart ones do. No questioning he was the first President to address slavery the way he did. Yes, the South not only wanted to keep slavery, but wanted to expand it. Both totally wrong, however I realize using the period thinking and economic conditions why they wanted to.

As to the Emancipation Proclamation I stand by my comment it freed no slave. I can see your arguements it was the catylist for freedom and will give you that point.

The Marshall decision I used to show that Merryman had similar ruling and was not unique by Taney. I will stand by my last post the the Constitution clearly leaves suspension of Habeas to Congress. We may have to agree to disagree on this. Lincoln, IMO, clearly broke the law by suspending Habeas.

No I do not hold Lincoln solely responsible for the war. Both sides share the blame. My point about the Douglass speech was that he felt Lincoln brought the nation safely through the conflict. I do not think 600,000 dead and the distruction cause can be characterized as Douglass did.

I will stand by Lincoln being a racist, as were most whites in his time. I will admit Lincoln was a visionary, which all time periods have, that the nation had to sooner or later eleminate slavery. If you wish to start a debate about Lincoln I will gladly join in.

A question, do you think the slaves were free after the war? We may have a new thread or two to start and more interesting debate ahead. I look forward to you next post, until then.

Take care and have fun.

Shadowrebel (John)

P.S. I take no offense in any of your comments and if I gave the impression I did I am sorry for seeming I did. I am not like that. I think you say what you think if I don't like it that is my problem, I say what I think if you don't like it that is your problem. I realize Javal's right to restrict personal attacks and agree with it.



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Current time is 11:28 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 0.2477 seconds (11% database + 89% PHP). 40 queries executed.