Posted on 05/01/2017 7:54:06 AM PDT by C19fan
John S. Mosby, known as the “Gray Ghost,” was a Virginian who became legendary for his leadership of Mosby’s Rangers—a band of Confederate guerrilla fighters that harassed the Union Army and went toe-to-toe with George Armstrong Custer in the Shenandoah Valley.
Mosby is still highly regarded as a strategist and tactician and is studied to this day by practitioners of unconventional warfare. He lived a long life, dying early in the 20th century, and was also a lawyer, a diplomat and author who wrote about his experiences during the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
How about we call you silly for taking a person's opinion out of a blog post as gospel truth?
In conjunction with the loss of many of the wartime records, the paper trail for a stalled policy thins out for the last year of Lincoln’s life, but it does not disappear.
Loss of what wartime records? Literally every word Lincoln wrote or spoke for the record is available online. Add to that the Official Record of the Rebellion contains every written order or report to and from the army and I'd say that Lincoln's administration and the Civil War is one of the most carefully documented periods in our history. Certainly in the 19th century.
Congress cannot override a constitutional requirement by passing a law. (And I don't give a crap what the 1863 Supreme Court has to say on the matter. Lincoln very nearly arrested Judge Taney, so let's just say those guys were under duress.)
Once again you are ignoring the obvious. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the rebellious parts of the country. It did not outlaw slavery, either in the rebellious parts or the non-rebellious parts. Absent the 13th Amendment, what was to prevent slavery from being reintroduced in the Southern states post rebellion? So as a point of fact, the 13th Amendment affected the entire country.
And you accuse me of ignoring the obvious. What part of "shall be delivered up" do you not understand? You can't "free" slaves by Diktat. (At least you can't do it in a Constitutional Republic with a Constitutional clause which doesn't allow it.)
Lincoln exceeded his Constitutional Authority, but *NO ONE* would dare challenge him at that point.
And we are supposed to give a crap about your biased opinions on Lincoln and the rebellion? Try relying on facts for a change.
Lincoln very nearly arrested Judge Taney, so let's just say those guys were under duress.
Yes, Taney was under such duress that be voted against the government in the Prizes Case.
And perhaps that's because your claim that Lincoln very nearly arrested Chief Justice Taney is bullsh*t, like most of your other stuff. There are any number of biographies of Roger Taney out there, carefully documented works by reputable historians like James Simon, Bernard Steiner, and Walker Lewis. Men who spent a considerable amount of time researching and writing their books. And in not a single one of them does the biographer mention anything about an arrest attempt by Lincoln or anyone else. Nothing on arrest warrants not served. Nothing about any threat to Taney's life and freedom during the Civil War or prior to it. Are you suggesting that they all purposely ignored this salient fact and deliberately omitted it from their books?
And you accuse me of ignoring the obvious. What part of "shall be delivered up" do you not understand?
And what part of "did not outlaw slavery, either in the rebellious parts or the non-rebellious parts" is unclear to you. Nowhere in the Emancipation Proclamation is slavery outlawed. Nowhere in law prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment is slavery deemed to be illegal. Now I understand that the rule of law means little to Confederacy supporters, but facts are facts whether you accept them or not.
You can't "free" slaves by Diktat. (At least you can't do it in a Constitutional Republic with a Constitutional clause which doesn't allow it.)
It just wouldn't be a DiogenesLamp post without a helping of manure, would it?
Lincoln exceeded his Constitutional Authority, but *NO ONE* would dare challenge him at that point.
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that proclaims you as the ultimate source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Which clause is that?
You can't search the internet yourself? Well Major General Benjamin Butler did say it, and it can be verified by any number of other sources. This article also proves he was in Washington at the time he said he was, Which pretty much knocks down the argument of critics to the contrary.
There is also this little gem at that link.
Throughout this period Butler was aware that Treasury Department agent Hanson Risley accompanied the president at City Point.[31] Risley, incidentally, was a central figure in the larger cotton-trading controversy that had drawn the ire of several northern congressmen against the Lincoln administration, including criticism directed at the president himself. A close associate of Seward and political boss Thurlow Weed, Risley had been involved in the granting of cotton-trading permits with the south to Lincoln's personal friends, including Leonard Swett and the brother of Ward Hill Lamon.
Loss of what wartime records? Literally every word Lincoln wrote or spoke for the record is available online.
You should solicit your answer from the New York Times Blogger who wrote it. His name appears to be Sebastian Page.
You seem to be attacking the messenger. Perhaps you should attack the message? I don't think you will have any luck there, because it appears that the claim is true.
You're the one who quoted him, not me.
Major Anderson moved into Fort Sumter 5 days after South Carolina repealed their ratification of the US Constitution. He'd begun to notice an escalation of the States patrol boats moving back and forth in the waterway between Moultrie and Sumter. He knew that if SC decided to move men into position they could easily overtake Moultrie. That's why he moved first. One might posit that he was "provoked". So, you, my good FRiend, are wrong again. In fact your whole post was very poorly played.
No, you are supposed to give a crap about the fact that the Congress cannot override a constitutional law. Neither can a President.
Nothing about any threat to Taney's life and freedom during the Civil War or prior to it. Are you suggesting that they all purposely ignored this salient fact and deliberately omitted it from their books?
I should not be surprised if they did. All the Union apologists ever do is tell the story in such a way as to cast the best light on Lincoln's acts. When they can't justify them, they simply don't report them at all.
After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him.
If that' isn't good enough for you, here is a book written by a former Mayor of Baltimore in which he claims Judge Taney told him he was almost arrested. (Page 90)
And what part of "did not outlaw slavery, either in the rebellious parts or the non-rebellious parts" is unclear to you.
The sentence is clear enough. Were it accurate you might have a point, but since it is not, understanding the words you wrote is irrelevant. Lincoln did in fact outlaw slavery solely on his own authority and in direct contravention of Article IV, Section II, Second Paragraph. The defacto truth is that Lincoln far exceeded his legitimate constitutional powers.
It just wouldn't be a DiogenesLamp post without a helping of manure, would it?
No thanks, I don't need you adding any manure to it. You can keep that stuff for yourself. I have no use for it.
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that proclaims you as the ultimate source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Which clause is that?
Well see, there is where you are mistaken. The constitution was never intended to be a f***ing dictionary, you are expected to be able to speak English and understand the meaning of words when you read it.
I, being a person who can read English and understand the meanings of words in the Constitution, can explain what it means to others who may not be so gifted. That's what I am attempting to do for you, but you are bull headed and don't want to learn anything that contradicts your religion.
But other people can read and understand it too. In fact, most people can.
You are the one who challenged what he said instead of simply looking it up yourself on the internet. It is easily verifiable by many other sources, but you would rather carp and bitch about it being a "blog" than concern yourself with whether or not it is in fact true.
Which it was.
Anything that damages the mythology you wish to promulgate will cause you to assert that it is "poorly played."
This is an attempt by you to slap a veneer of mock objectivity on your pronouncements, but it doesn't fool anyone.
It is really the content you find objectionable, not how it is presented.
So why was the Powhatan steaming to Florida instead of Charleston where all the other ship's orders said it would be so that they could deliver the supplies?
Why it's almost as if Lincoln wanted those men to starve, because he made no contingency for what the Ships were to do if the Powhatan didn't show up.
Just bobbing out in the ocean they were, waiting for a ship that was never to come.
April 11th is the also the day that Lincoln gave the speech that convinced Booth to carry out the assassination.
The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, “Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?” “Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?”
Are you suggesting that Lincoln is publicly suggesting that some former slaves should have the franchise, while privately suggesting that they be sent to colonies?
Regardless, this is an idea that obviously intrigued Lincoln at one point. It would not shock me if he had explored it again in his second term. But, as others have pointed out, participation would have been voluntary, and it likely would have gone nowhere again.
And you're saying over and over again is that people in 1860 didn't care about slavery or the slaves.
Fine, if you or I had been white Americans in 1860 we most likely wouldn't have cared much about the slaves. You certainly wouldn't.
But they you act as though Lincoln were somehow uniquely racist in his day and contemplating deporting freed slaves against their will.
Looking at the historical Lincoln, and comparing him to most people of the day -- including the hypothetical nineteenth century you and I -- the conclusion one draws would have to be that he was less prejudiced and less stuck in his ways than most of his contemporaries -- including the hypothetical you and I.
The man who went to great lengths in his 1858 campaign not to give any support to the idea of racial equality was receiving Frederick Douglass and black delegations in the White House and giving them a respectful hearing -- something unheard of in mid-19th century America, and something you or certainly wouldn't have done if you'd been alive back then.
So why not simply admit that and give the man his due?
Nowadays I find it nearly impossible to be too cynical because often times you will find the blackest hearts in the nicest seeming people. Look at the Clintons for example.
If you really thought the Clintons were "nice" that's another problem you have.
Politicians are role-players. What they say is part of the role that their playing and designed to get them elected.
But that doesn't mean that they are completely materialistic and self-interested and without beliefs. Sometimes it's those very beliefs that make them dangerous.
Mea culpa. You are correct. I was just trying to be polite. What I really meant to say about your post #395 was that it was a bunch of bullsh*t.
I had little doubt you would consider it that before I even wrote it. You are hardly a paragon of objectivity.
Lincoln’s evolution as a politician and a man is one of the more amazing things about him. I was listening to an interview recently with an author who wrote a book on McClelland. He said that one of the things that likely led to the animosity between the two was that they were both Whigs in the 1840s and probably shared the same political views as young men. However, McClelland moved towards the Democrats while Lincoln obviously became a Republican.
The author argued that McClelland always carried those cautious, middle of the road Whig beliefs. Lincoln, on the other hand, kept a cautious approach but that approach served far more radical political ends. The gist - and I’ve seen this elsewhere - is that Lincoln realized exactly what the Civil War was going to be far earlier than nearly anyone else in the country. Meanwhile, McClelland seemed to always believe that he could quell the rebellion without a total bloodletting and somehow return politics to the status quo.
Essentially, McClelland wanted to take a cautious approach to return to the 1850s, while Lincoln knew that that the slavery question was going to be resolved once and for all in some manner.
I have no earthly idea why I added a D to his name. A thousand apologies....
I don't see any serious analyses of coastal shipping rates in the 19th century online or in book form. I do see references to rants by slaveowning politicians and secessionist propagandists about how Yankee shippers were charging all the traffic would bear, but there's nothing objective or unprejudiced or serious about such complaints.
Whenever there's sectional or ethnic conflicts you hear complaints about middlemen taking more than their share -- all the more so, when the complainers are used to getting services and labor without having to pay for them -- but they aren't often accompanied with serious breakdowns of prices and costs.
Presumably, there was more than one ship or one shipping line running between New York and Charleston or New Orleans. Of course, any restrictions on market entry would keep rates higher than they otherwise would be, but there would be some competition, and it stands to reason that would help keep pricing from being predatory.
Plus, I'm not entirely sure what makes you think that British or European shippers would be cheaper and more efficient that US lines. Surely, American crews were as good as foreigners, and more familiar with the local waterways. And there was every reason why Americans would want to develop their own coastal shipping, rather than rely on foreigners.
And "coastal shipping" is what we're talking about. So far as I know, the rates and penalties only applied to shipping between US cities, not transatlantic trade. If US coastal shippers were so predatory and New York warehousing was a rip-off, Southern cotton planters were free to ship directly to Europe without having to pay the exorbitant fees imposed by the Northerners.
If your argument is correct, direct shipping between Britain or Europe and the South would have been the norm. If it wasn't, and most trade went through New York, there must have been very real reasons for that, and New York or the North wouldn't have been exploiting the poor, dear, rich slave owners you are so concerned about.
Of course you wouldn't. You have no shame and have long since lost any remaining shred of what little credibility you ever had to begin with. Never mind the fact that James F. Simon has written seven books on the Supreme Court in general and half a dozen of its justices in particular. Never mind the fact that Walker Lewis wrote his biography 50 years ago. Never mind the fact that none of the three authors I mentioned wrote a single book on the Civil War itself. You, with all your bluster and ignorance, write them off as "Union apologists". You, sir, are a boob. Someone every bit as bigoted and biased in your own way as you accuse others of being. Trying to debate you is a waste of time because you reply to fact with bullsh*t, and respond to logic with inane nonsense.
If I recall properly, the Whites in the Confederacy were not allowed to vote. From the perspective of these people, Lincoln had not only destroyed their lands, homes and killed their people, he had evaporated their capital, their industry, and now intended to put their former slaves above them as their masters by giving them the vote which they no longer had.
In fact, several majority black legislatures were created by this method, but it's hard to find any references to this anymore. Because it became embarrassing to the Union, they quickly undid it. The references to these events appear to be nearly scrubbed off the internet. I haven't found a source for this (for how embarrassing were the doings of these legislatures for the Union officials running the South at that time.) for a long time, but I recall reading it in several history books decades ago.
Are you suggesting that Lincoln is publicly suggesting that some former slaves should have the franchise, ...
Actually I thought he went about it in the most reasonable manner possible. His suggestion that it be "conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." is as good a way as any to attempt selling this idea politically, but no matter what he did, the idea would not be welcomed at that time in the South.
...while privately suggesting that they be sent to colonies?
So far as sending them to the colonies, he had proposed that they be hired by the Federal Government to build a Canal across Panama, and once they were settled in Panama, they could send for their wives and families. That was his Panama plan. He was trying for inducement at this point in time. (1863 I think) He had been pushing various "Get them out of America" plans since the 1840s, I think.
Regardless, this is an idea that obviously intrigued Lincoln at one point. It would not shock me if he had explored it again in his second term. But, as others have pointed out, participation would have been voluntary, and it likely would have gone nowhere again.
I think a voluntary plan would have gone nowhere again. Yes, I think that's correct. The point in bringing it up at all is to demonstrate that Lincoln didn't believe the "all men are created equal" anymore than did the founders four score and seven years earlier.
That is far from the worst thing that history has done to George Brinton McClellan.
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.