Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj
Just wondering what people might have to say about this.
Both would say they tried to preserve their union. Both employed military might to do so and killed lots of their own citizens.
ML/NJ
Unilateral secession is an idea that doesn't work. It doesn't work because terms of separation have to be worked out and you can't have a state or a collection of states asserting their independence and asking the rest of the country to be contented with whatever the secessionists can't grab and take with them. The Constitution established the federal government to deal with national questions and the separation of a state or the sundering of the union is a national question, to be resolved at the federal level in accordance with the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
I don't get why this was such a big thing -- why secessionists couldn't hash things out in Congress or a constitutional convention, why they wanted to just up and leave, taking whatever they wanted with them. I suspect part of it was that they were just fed up, and part of it was that they wanted a panic, a crisis situation when all the slaveowning states would leave the union, rather than a reasoned, deliberative process involving discussion, debate, and consensus-building.
Unilateral secession was likely to mean war. People saw that in 1860 and earlier. That's why they tried so hard to work out compromises. Lincoln reacted more or less as any president worth anything would react. No head of government was going to simply roll over and give the secessionists everything they wanted, and they should have realized that.
Well, that depends on what "the abloishment of slavary" means ...
I know that you are aware that historians say that most African-Iraqis arrived as slaves from East Africa as part of the Arab slave trade starting about 1400 years ago.
Slavery was not started by Confederates, no, the wonderful Middle Eastern Muslims take that honor.
_____________________
Wow, now I’m informed. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson David, all the confederates were ignorant dupes for the Islamocists. Sort of “Useful Idiots” for the Islamo-facists.
In that light. Lincoln and the heroic military of the Union were even more important national heroes then I had realized.
FR can be so educational.
But I am correct and you are wrong.
Lincoln fought to preserve the Constitution and the Confederate democrats fought to destroy it and still do through their legacy of Wilson and FDR and up till today.
Are you one of them there “community organizers” who like to stir the pot and say “why don’t you and him have a fight” while you duck and run?
JC
It is well known about Wilson’s allegiance to the Confederates and it is also well known that the birth of the Progressive movement contained elements that originated frmom both the republican and democrat party.
It was though the democrats (Confederates) who brought about the full blown birth of the Progressive moevement with the Wilson Presidency.
Here is a quick blurb by Jonah Glodberg who has studied much of this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/182307/obama-confederacy-and-woodrow-wilson/jonah-goldberg
There is a lot of history of the alliances between the Progressive movement and the Confederate movement. The Poeple’s party (a Confederate democrat movement) endorsed Woodrow Wilson and of course it is well known that Wilson endorsed another Confederate movement (the KKK).
In many ways it was the Confederate democrats who were very simliat to Qaddafi being that they wanted power at all costs. Secession was an attempt to throw away the Constitution and to rule supreme over their slaves. The Confederates even formed terrorist groups such as the KKK such as Qaddafi uses terrorism for the same means to hold power.
Both the Confederates and the Progressive democrats that followed shortly after supported this type of disregard for the rule of law and the use of terrorism.
The Lost Causers could deny all of this if they want but the truth will catch up to them and they will be exposed. They are the birth of all of the anti-Constitution politics that we see in America today. The Confederate democrats were the birth of today’s Progressive democrat party.
False, he owned more than 100.
and the southern congress was already holding hearing on the abloishment of slavary when Lincoln attacked.
Not that I'm aware of. Understandably, they had other things on their minds.
Davis owned no slaves(adopted a young black man as his son).
There is no documentation Davis ever adopted Jim Limber. Seems to not have spent much thought on him after the war. More likely he was brought into the family as a playmate for their son of the same age, much as one might "adopt" a puppy.
Neither did General Lee and the rest of the Confederate Generals
Lee may not have owned slaves but did administer an estate with many. Wade Hampton, for one example, owned the most slaves in SC and possibly in the entire country.
whereas almost all of the Northern Generals owned slaves.
Would appreciate a statistical analysis to support such an idiotic statement.
Lincoln was a slave owner. Liberal historians try hide this by saying that the slaves were his wife's not his..
Various members of Mary's family owned numbers of slaves. Some of these may at times have been assigned to work for Mary on a temporary basis. I know of no evidence she, or certainly Lincoln, ever held title to slaves.
You are right about the deportation. Few whites, north or south saw blacks as any semblance of equals. The normal practice was to return escaped slaves to the south. A “free state” mostly meant that a slave could become free if someone bought his way out, not that he was automatically free once he got there.
We know little of historical motives, and have been taught mostly BS.
What is the Tea Party about? Yes, money, more specifically, taxes. Are they rebelling against the Establishment? Yes and if we don't start seeing some changes toward following the Constitution. Don't be surprised if we might just see a war about it. I hope not but I won't be surprised if we do.
Have you ever heard of 70 year old John Burns, the Gettysburg civilian who fought in the Civil war? He's one of my heroes because he showed everyone that even an old man can fight back for what he believes in. There's a full-length biography that sorts out fact from fiction, covering how he was wounded, captured and survived to become a national celebrity; how he received a personal thanks from Abraham Lincoln; how Congress passed a special act granting him a pension; and much more.
But nice attempt to drop the historical context.
History is wrote by the victor, it does not necessarily mean that it is 100% true.
Since history is written by the victors, it is therefore appropriate for the losers to make things up without any evidence whatsoever. < / sarcasm >
Well let's get back to your history for a moment. Can you list, oh, five Union generals who were slave owners? Since you said that virtually all of them were then that shouldn't be hard to do. Feel free to list more if you like.
In 1864, Cleburne, one of the better southern generals, suggested freeing and arming the slaves. The army and government went nuts, and he never was promoted further, despite the desperate need for good officers. Davis went so far as to send a personal envoy to the western army to make sure the rot hadn’t spread.
Shelby Foote, not exactly an example of a pro-Northern historian, has an interesting discussion of how CSA congressmen fought bitterly against the idea of arming blacks as soldiers - in spring 1865!
They gave in only when RE Lee appealed personally to the Congress. Only a few blacks were inducted and only a few were armed and started training before the war ended.
Many blacks indeed served in the southern armies. Most of them served in exactly the same way as the horses. As chattel used by their owners as they saw fit, not at their own volition. It is entirely possible some would have voluntarily fought for the CSA, but they weren’t given that choice, as they weren’t given any others in their lives.
Easy. Qaddafi could get away with telling his lady that her ass looked fat.
Hi Non! Representing the Redlegs on tonight’s thread?
Former slaves did volunteer and actually raise money to support their units and the cause. It’s well documented.
My God, you’ve got some tall boots (and probably a sturdy shovel), old friend. Thank you for making reference to the so-called Progressive/Communist involvement with regard to the War of Northern Aggression. Keep making steaks out of those old sacred cows, Pelham.
At a certain point it becomes pointless to present facts to the invincibly ignorant. So I’ll spare myself the effort and let you go blissfully onward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.