Posted on 08/26/2004 7:53:13 PM PDT by RebelBanker
National Press Officer
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Is that a name or a sport?
So, shall I post a newspaper article from Lawrence telling about the massacre of innocent civilians there? I mean, if its in a newspaper, it must be true, right? That's apparently your position. I find it interesting, though, that you'll cite as evidence when it agrees with you a paper that ordinarily you'd dismiss as the most biased yankee propaganda. But then that's the sort of hypocrisy I've come to expect from you.
you, otoh, seem to have NOTHING except more DRIVEL, arrogance, hatefulness & anti-southern rants to share with us.
what you just can't accept is that the damnyankee cause was UNJUST & IMMORAL from beginning to end & that the MORAL & HONORABLE side didn't win the war.
in point of fact, i've never seen anything from you that indicates that you have ever even heard of the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES, committed by the "filth in blue" and/or the RACIST, hatefilled opinions of lincoln, the CHEAP POLITICIAN, RACIST & LIAR. must be your leftist, "publick screwl edumakashun" that's at fault.
free dixie,sw
Perhaps your voluminous research into the failed cotton picking machines of the 19th Century hasn't allowed you time to explore the nuances of politics in the Union during the war. You see, chief, New York City was Democrat controlled. They were southern sympathizers from the war's beginning. And the mobs that rioted were controlled by the democrats. So it's not surprising that Radical Republican newspapers, on the furthest edge of pro-aboltion sentiment, would try to make hay of the riots. I note, though, that they haven't given a number. Again, you challenged someone to do a google search to find out how many blacks were lynched during the New York Draft Riots, adding that it was more than were ever lynched in the south. I found a large number of academic sources that give a pretty consistent picture. You come up with two sources of dubious neutrality on the subject, which don't give a number. Hell, maybe there were only a dozen lampposts in NY in 1863.
you, otoh, seem to have NOTHING except more DRIVEL, arrogance, hatefulness & anti-southern rants to share with us.
You just cut and paste these bits from one post to another, don't you? They're getting boring.
what you just can't accept is that the damnyankee cause was UNJUST & IMMORAL from beginning to end & that the MORAL & HONORABLE side didn't win the war.
What I can't accept is your deep denial that the South was anything except completely moral and honorable. Tell me, who betrayed their oaths of allegiance to the United States to take arms against it? As for Sumter being Southern territory, isn't Guantanamo Cuban territory? Hell, that's part of the legal reason to keep them there--it's not U.S. territory. So if the Cubans started shelling Guantanamo, would they be justified? Or would they have just started something that they can't finish?
in point of fact, i've never seen anything from you that indicates that you have ever even heard of the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES, committed by the "filth in blue"
War is hell. The South reaped what she sowed. Cry me a river.
the RACIST, hatefilled opinions of lincoln, the CHEAP POLITICIAN, RACIST & LIAR.
I know all about them. Unfortunately, one can only find a handful of white voices on either side-- who weren't racist at that time. Or are you going to argue that the south wasn't just as racist?
One more time: If Lincoln was such a racist, if the entire North cared nothing about the slaves, why did they free them at war's end? And not just in the south but in the border states as well?
Yes, I absolutely think so. There was a time when I thought the Yankee position was correct. That was the result of reading the half truths and distortions printed in Yankee history books. I've been an voracious reader of The War for Southern Independence for well overy 30 years now, and I accept the Southern cause as being the Constitutional proper response to Yankee treachery. An enormous, out of control central government is the result of Lincoln's war to force his liberal thinking on all Americans. All the fears Jefferson Davis expressed in his farwell address to the US Senate have now manifested themselves. He was absolutely correct on all accounts. Now all Americans must pay the price for Lincoln's deception.
If you don't think Lincoln was a racist you obvously need to read a LOT more. You can start on the Lincoln/Douglas debates when Saint Abraham called the negros N.....s on three occasions. Then you can go on to Colonization. After that you can read up on the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment to our Constitution, which promised perpetual slavery if the Southern states accepted the doubling of tariffs. I can go ON and ON. You will find the book "The Real Lincoln - A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" by Thomas J DiLorenzo very, very informative, and a Real Eye Opener. Do yourself a big favor and read this book before commenting further on Saint Abraham's racism.
yawn
Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA: "As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not his equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both. Why one race was made inferior to another, is not for us to inquire."
But the question I keep asking the Lost Causers around here and which I never get an answer to is this: If the north was so racist, if they cared nothing about slavery, why did they abolish slavery at war's end, not just in the rebellion states, but in the loyal border states as well?
Well, here's the answer you keep asking for. It is clear that Lincoln was a racist who didn't believe in slavery. There are many reasons for the abolishment of slavery but I believe kindness was not one of them. The "Black" code laws passed by some northern states to keep the negros out, made clear the attitude of northerners. Northerners disliked negros just as much after the war, as before. In my view the reasons for abolition were af follows, in order of importance;
1. ECONOMIC - Freeing the slaves would have little impact on the economy of the north. It would insure that the south's economy would remain static for the forseeable future. This would insure that the southern states could not rise to become powerful enough to again treaten the authority of the U.S. Goverment. There was a very real fear of this, especially among the union veterans.
2. VOTING BLOC - The newly freed slaves would become voters, Republican voters for the most part. This would maintain the then present power structure, which appears to be so important to politicans.
3. VINDICTIVENESS - After the war the abolitionist were very vindictive towards southerners and the amendment would reinforce the power they held over the people of the south. Lincoln's forgiving reconstruction would be replaced with a very harsh policy, with military occupation.
4. POTENTIAL VIOLENCE - Many slaves were promised freedom for their part in winning the war. To go back on this would invite much unrest and could possibly require further military intervention. The world community would look in distain towards the U.S. Goverment if it reneged on the slavery issue, and feel it couldn't be trusted.
Your #3 seems to argue that it was the post-assassination congress the passed the 13th Amendment, when it was actually passed in by the Senate in April of '64 and by the House in January '65, then sent to the states. With the house stalling, Lincoln even had it put onto the Republican party platform for the November '64 elections.
You're also, I think, neglecting the fact that, even though most northerners didn't like blacks and didn't particularly want them living among them, they detested slavery and blamed it for causing the war. Look at the popular songs of the north. The Battle Hymm of the Republic isn't about installing higher tariffs. While the reasons the north went to war against the south at the beginning are complex and include economic factors, the fact is that it became a crusade, and there was no way that the north was going to allow the factor that they blamed the war on to continue.
As I said in an earlier post, mostly I blame the war on politicians on both sides who demagogued the issue for 40 years before the war, hardening battle lines and increasing sectionalism.
Good thought provoking reply. Thanks.
The southern economy wasn't completely based on slavery, but slavery contributed much to it. Many farms had no slaves.
Your response to #3 is informative. I'll need to read further on that point.
And YES I should have included a fifth point.
5. The northerners wanted to remove FOREVER this point of contention, so that slavery could never again be an issue, and further divide the nation. Slavery had caused sour relations within the union since the slave rebellion in 1832. (Forgot the rebellion name, can you recall it?)
Are you talking about Nat Turner? There were others, but that's the one that mostly gets talked about.
But slavery was an issue even before that. The whole hubbub over the Missouri Compromise was in 1820, which Thomas Jefferson said was "as though a fire bell had rung in the night."
Nat Turner it was. Very good memory. Thanks for the exchange.
Then stay home in your trailer park.
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.