View single post by HankC
 Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:31 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
HankC
Member


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

  back to top


John,

As a free thinker, you may wish to expand your list of research sources and look at the ones you choose with a more critical eye...

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?

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...

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 "…

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.

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

 

Cheers,

HankC

 Close Window