Skip to comments.Targeting Lost Causers
Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
There’s good money out there for anybody who can write a book about how Lincoln was the personification of evil. Thomas Dilorenzo has done quite well with his nonsense about Lincoln.
They(neo-yankees) would have to invent another group to make fun of, as to make their own Federal Boot Licking tendencies palpable....
Yes he has. So has Lerone Bennett.
DiLorenzo and Bennett are two sides of the same coin.
There is a cultural element of the South that has been distorted by history texts since the 1870’s that warrants appreciation.
Self reliance, respect for hard work, voluntary sense of community, connectedness of family and community, genuine personal religious belief, respect for law and rightful government, and skepticism of distant central government are all factors. Most of this was learned the hard way by ancestors who experienced abuses in hard times before.
The Civil War was not about slavery, but that was a side element of the disputes. It was about conflicting economic interests.
I have stated this before and got a lot of criticism for it. I am sorry, this is how I view this event.
I do not study or read Civil War History. I do not live in the past. I have nothing but contempt for those who promoted slavery then, nor those who promote economic slavery now.
Life is about living in freedom and opposing oppression.
There is an understood concept in Texas. Leave us alone to live our lives in peace and we will get along fine, if that is not satisfactory, we will deal with it.
Lincoln was no angel. And it was about STATES RIGHTS, exactly what we’re trying to do here, today.
Destruction of the Constitution
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and 13,000 people were thrown into prison in Washington, DC, alone on charges never brought or made known. In his Proclamation of September 24, 1864, Lincoln by executive fiat ordered that all citizens who engaged in “disloyal practices” would be tried in military tribunals, with such practices decided at whim by Lincoln himself. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney informed Lincoln that he was engaged in practices that violated the Constitution he had sworn an oath to uphold. (Harold Hyman, A More Perfect Union, pp 85-86) Lincoln issued orders to arrest the octogenarian Taney but thought better of assaulting the most respected man in the country. The governor of New York reminded people that the founding fathers during the Revolution did not destroy mens’ rights - “THEY did not say liberty was suspended, that men might be deprived of the right to trial by jury, that they might be torn from their homes by midnight intruders.”
Lincoln let his generals suspend 300 newspapers. As Encyclopedia Britannica puts it “He justified this action on the ground that he had to allow some temporary sacrifice of the Constitution in order to maintain the Union...” In other words, he destroyed the Constitution in order to save it. It is little wonder that Booth considered Lincoln a tyrant and expected Lincoln to create a monarchy. Lincoln’s model of assuming war powers and concentrating power in Washington was the precedent used by Wilson and FDR as a tool to remake America into a socialist state. Their intense desire and eagerness to grab and use this tool lead them to mistaken and harmful war-mongering. When the Constitution fails them they have only to say “this is time of war - and war gives all needed power.”
LINCOLN - 19th CENTURY HITLER
War has always been terrible, of course, and mass extermination was a regular occurrence until the development of what may be called; without irony, the rules of “civilized warfare” late in the seventeenth century. At that time Europe’s rulers, exhausted by bloody combat, came to agree on certain conventions: combat should be confined to soldiers in uniform; civilians and their property should be left alone; prisoners should be treated humanely; and defeated powers should be spared total devastation and indignity. These rules held until Lincoln violated them in the War Between the States, replacing them with the logic of annihilation that governed primitive or “primary warfare” — the unrestricted slaughter common between warring societies with no civilized principles in common.
For more than two centuries after the age of Louis XIV, European civilians were so unmolested that they often barely realized that their rulers were at war, and ordinary travel and commerce between countries usually continued during hostilities. There was courtliness between rulers and officers of opposing armies, like the jovial fraternization between common soldiers as soon as peace was restored. A sort of golden rule prevailed; each victor realized that he might be tomorrow’s loser, so everyone tried to avoid leaving a legacy of bitterness by treating the vanquished reasonably and often generously. Peace treaties politely avoided any tone of blame or recrimination.
Lincoln’s policy of waging war on civilian areas shocked European observers. Lincoln justified this on grounds that he was dealing not with a traditional war, but with a rebellion, in which the entire enemy population might be treated as criminals and traitors. The idealizers of Lincoln have blamed his policy on the generals who merely carried it out, especially Sherman and Sheridan. Of course even Lincoln was unable to apply this view consistently; to do so would have meant executing nearly every Southerner, soldier or civilian.
I say that since academic/popular consensus is firmly on Lincoln’s side, and Lincoln has been set in stone as a national hero, let the Southern apologists have their fun. They’ve got some points. Lincoln had his dark side. If people like DiLorenzo stretch the truth, not many will listen. His ilk have that whole slavery stigma to overcome, which is a losing prospect.
With malice toward none and charity for all! What a great man!
Anyone that says anything positive about the Confederacy is going to get attacked. It is like the myths of JFK and BHO, reality can be painful. For many people, Lincoln is above human criticism. He is the Union’s Messiah as much as Obama is the Messiah of the left. Of course, there are those that romanticize about the Confederacy, too. It is easy to create that myth. I would like to see and read an accurate history of that era, but authors cannot help, it seems, but to use circular arguments that validate their own views. Maybe a hundred years from now, when people can be less emotional invested in the subject, someone will write an objective history, but it is not going to happen in my lifetime.
Lincoln really didn’t care about slavery one way or the other - he stated so - until he realized he could use it for political gain. He supported the original 13th amendment - The Corwin amendment. Read it.
Right now the Constitution has gone very far out of whack and balance. Power has shifted from the balanced State-Federal equation. It is now heavily weighted toward the federal side.
To correct it, a reassertion of State's Rights is beginning to be heard. Unfortunately "States' Rights" is now a code=word meaning "no civil rights for blacks." The term has been completely co-opted, making anyone calling for States' Rights a "racist."
In the popular view, the ultimate expression of States' Rights was the founding of the Confederacy, inextricably bound up with slavery.
Actually, the principle of states rights was used by Northern states to ignore the Fugitive slave act.
Don’t surrender because of lies.
Simple economics. It sells.
He was not elected to the post of angel, he was elected president of the US. Being president can be a rough job, especially during a Civil War. I do not think you can examine Lincoln completely without knowing what was simultaneously happening in Saint Jeff's Dixie of sweetness and light. When Lincoln was merely jailing suspected bridge burners in Maryland, the Davis's thugs were hanging them in Knoxville. One of the best defense for Lincoln's actions can be found in looking at the way the rebels treated their own home front.
I don’t live in the past either, but I do study it. The current faddish trend is for every generation to be so self-absorbed as to think they are smarter than all the previous generations. How’s that working out?
Thank you for such balanced comments.
I stated that I have not studied Civil War History and do not dwell in the past.
My ancestors left the deep south because of intolerable government abuse.
My grandfather said his Dad never talked about it, but the experience left indelible impressions on him. He knew real hunger as a child. He always had a huge garden, far too much to eat, and was quiet and knowledgeable.
He and his mother left Alabama after the father left them, the father was wanted for murder of carpet baggers and would have been hanged if he was caught. He was not caught, but wound up in Arkansas. The family found him after the turn of the century.
You wonder why so many of the courthouse were burned to the ground in much of the south. Part of the time it was to erase the records.
I understand knowing the past, but as someone previously posted it is difficult to find a balanced perspective to something that was a complex event.
I tend to accept my ancestors "biases" over what I read in print now. History texts nearer to the actual event are probably more accurate, but have to be filtered for biases.
I have a copy of "The Great Conspiracy" it's origins & history .. by John A. Logan copyright 1886 that I found interesting. It has been many years since I read it.
The only “lost cause” is a true little ‘r’ republic that we were supposed to live in before the Yankees destroyed it.
I wonder how long it’ll take before IrishCatholic pops into the thread...
"Logic of annihilation"? And you can present evidence to support such an outrageous lie?
It isn’t nonsense. He quotes reputable sources. You just don’t like it because it shows Lincoln as he was. Not a pretty picture compared to the “Saint Abe” crap that has been shoved down throats since 1865.
The US had legalized slavery for over 200 years, north and south. Lincoln advocated an amendment that would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable. Almost 80% of the changes made by the Confederate Constitution were for less taxes, less big government, and the elimination of pork and government subsidies.
Maybe they could focus on how the glorious heroes of the north immediately went west and waged a campaign of attempted genocide against Native Americans.
There is much to admire in the courage & endurance of the South's soldiers, in the brilliance of some leaders, and of course, anyone supporting smaller, more restricted government is much appreciated by Conservatives.
But lots of folks love to lie about the South's cause -- claim it wasn't all about slavery (yes it was!), or that the North conducted a war of annihilation (not even close!).
If those are your arguments, then expect to be called to task for them.
I appreciate the fact that you do recognize some good things about the Confederacy; however, the argument is always over the cause(s) of the Civil War. The term annihilation may be too strong, but the Union declared war against civilians, raped, pillaged, looted, and burned its way across the South.
Complete nonsense. It was ONLY about salvery, nothing else, because Americans won't fight and die for abstract ideas or "economic interests."
Here's what it was really all about:
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
"Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
"I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
"I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."
"He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
"He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
"Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on."
Many of my ancestors were literally burned out of Alabama during Reconstruction and went GTT. That is how we came to live in Texas.
No one here worships the Old South, but the hatred of that repression still linger strong here. I do not need a history book to explain this. It is very personal.
I agree, and it is not working.
Forget the neoconfederate historical revisionists who ignore the fact that slavery was THE hot button issue that divided the Republic. They just use every excuse to legitimize their “lost cause.”
Not even close.
The number of soldiers who died in the Civil War was somewhere around 600,000.
The number of innocent civilians accidentally killed was a few dozen. Typically these were spectators at battles.
Both armies "requisitioned" supplies from local sources. These normally involved "payment" with currency which may or may not have had any real value.
The charge of systematic rape is not documented, that I know of. Indeed, if I remember right, Union General Hooker had a solution to the problem of young soldiers' biological urges -- a solution that still bears his name today!
Yes, it's true that Sherman did burn some buildings in Georgia, but not nearly what was later claimed, and only after a Southern army had burned down Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
For a recounting of what Sherman actually did, and a copy of his orders to his troops, see this link:
I can't answer for or defend Reconstruction. Nor can I say who actually burned out your Alabama ancestors.
But what I'm certain of is that the Reconstruction which actually happened was not necessarily what Lincoln intended, or would have allowed. Indeed, if I remember right, Lincoln's Vice President Johnson was impeached for opposing Radical Republican reconstruction plans.
I don't think we should blame Lincoln for what happened after he was murdered.
No Argument from me on that point. What I stated did in fact happen during the Radical Republican Supression of Alabama.
Well, sir, you and have a much different view of history and historical records. As much as I would like to discuss the issue, I do not see any room for persuasion, only disagreement.
A lot of criminals attach themselves to both sides in war, especially a Civil War. But if you’re going to judge both sides by their worst, the Confederates were at least every bit as bad as the Union and in my opinion the rebs were probably a lot worse.
Everyone has opinions.
I got two problems with DiLorenzo. First is his misuse and ignoring of context to paint a wildly false picture of Lincoln. But I find even more offensive his single minded portrayal of a improbable monster, a depraved human being even beyond Stalin. I believe there is something to be said for trying to see the good also in your fellow Americans. For instance, even though Jefferson Davis was a an incompetent, slavery promoting bloody-handed tyrant, I gladly concede that in his personal life he was a devoted and honorable devoted family man who even tried to improve the life of his slaves. DiLorenzo’s portrait of Lincoln is children’s comic book mentality unsuitable for adults. DiLorewnzo needs to be writing about Lex Luthor and Superman.
There are always going to be people that believe that the reason for the Civil War was slavery, and that the Union Army was on some Holy Crusade. Nothing that anyone is going to say is going to change their views. I am certain that others have a romanticized view of the South, too. Nothing anyone is going to say is going to change their minds.
The very people that are most interested in this subject are most likely the worse ones to trust. They tend to be emotionally involved and see things through their own spectacles.
If you are in the business of telling lies about the Civil War, then count on me to disagree. ;-)
That, my friend, is a two way street.
And the end result was a Davis government that was none of that.
Hyperbole aside, can you point to a single example of a rebellion where the losing side suffered less and was incorporated back into the body politic faster than the Southern U.S. states?
English Civil War for one.
Yeah, well Charles I might disagree with you on that one for a start. Loyalist leaders who were shot following the second civil war might register a complaint. The Irish might have a bone or two to pick with you on the 'suffered less' claim following the third civil war. In fact the wars were very bloody - the percentage of civilan dead from the three civil wars and the subsequent actions of Cromwell's government were far greater than the U.S. Civil War - and the repression especially following the third one was extreme.
The Down Survey, conducted immediately after the Irish War, estimated 614,000 Irish dead, 40% of the total population. That doesn't count the 12,000 Irish sold into slavery in the West Indies.
For an example of how the British handled independence movements in the mid-19th Century, look at the Indian Mutiny and how that was put down. Mass executions, hundreds of thousands dead.
How? Other than your damaged psyches and self-inflicted wounds like the legacy of Jim Crow, in what quantifiable sense is the south still suffering from a war that ended 144 years ago?