Posted on 10/11/2006 9:13:04 PM PDT by SideoutFred
Note that this came during a time when the tide was turning against the South.
Note how the Southern soldier stands upright, with a broken sword underfoot, while the Northern Soldier is dejected and "broken"... (Where have we heard that before?)
Note the phrase, "useless war."
Should we have listened to the defeatists back then, and have allowed the odious practice of slavery to go on?
Should we listen to the defeatists now, and allow Islamo-fascism to rule the day?
The source is
http://psycmeistr.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-if-we-had-listened-to-defeatists.html#links
What if we listen to the defeatist now?
Uh-oh... now, you just *know* the "The South was on the side of Righteousness, it wasn't about slavery, we'd be better off if the CSA had won, blah, blah, blah" contingent ain't gonna approve.
Beat me to it.
DixiePing
I spent a lovely afternoon, a few weeks back, with the psycmeistr. We met up to FReep/PW the Jack (cut and run) Murtha visit here in support of whistle-blower Colleen Rowley.
An absolute hoot!!!
If we'd listened to them then, we'd probably still have a constitutional balance of power. Slavery was going to end no matter what the outcome within 20 years with the Industrial Revolution.
Ok, I'm just spouting off, but I see your point !
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof, The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union . . . Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare . . . She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy . . . When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude. The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution . . . designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions . . . In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States . . . By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights . . . They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture . . . They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose . . . They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State . . . We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South . . . Source: ASCII Text Prepared by Justin Sanders from E.W. Winkler, ed., *Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas*, pp61-66.
< P >
The Union defeated the Confederacy by killing them and destroying their property until they couldn't take anymore and they surrendered. This is also how we one WWI, how we defeated the Germans and the Japanese in WWII and how we defeated the North Koreans and Chinese in the Korean war. This is hardly how we are fighting the war against Islamo-facists.
Protecting home, family, sovereignty - that is honorable and worthy.
And the most horrible things said about the President then.........
"Of course the rankest abuse came from the copperheads, among whom none was more inventive in his vituperation than a Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy. Lincoln, he wrote, was "but the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism"—indeed a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero." As the election of 1864 approached, Pomeroy editorialized: "The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."
So are we the north or the south?
Thomas Nast's Original "Compromise with the South" Print
This illustration makes a political statement that captures the mood of the nation at the time. The print is titled, "Compromise with the South", and the caption reads, "Dedicated to the Chicago Platform." Basically, George McClellan was running against Lincoln, and the Democratic convention was held in Chicago. The Chicago Platform, which McClellan was running on was to end the war by compromising with the south.
It is Rudy Giuliani or hil clintoon.
You guys in Cali are due to learn what real New York City Italian food taste like.
Let's get behind Rudolph Giuliani and win and then we can sit with a glass of wine and have a nice salad and then a little piece of fish and then a taste of pasta and then some beef and then......... we really start to eat.
You should connect to the "Brooklyn" in you!!
Keep in mind, New Yorkers fought and died at the Alamo.
I know that is Texas, but if a New Yorker goes that far west........ we would most certainly hit the coast.
OK, enough rambling.
Are you really saying the Democrats in 1861 were "giving up to win peace?"
Absolutely agree. We fight wars not to win them anymore.
Thank you for that...excellent. Where did you find that?
There is lots more. Astonishing how wrong they were but so convinced they were right. History has had it's say.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/4/fehrenbacher.html
We did?
It isn't too late. We might even be willing to let you keep Maryland at this point, if we get a corridor to the Pacific and a western port.
This is a very different kind of war. And not to quibble too much, but the best that could be said about the Korean War was that it was a bloody stalemate.
Great find! I must print this and show the my kids.
ping
Pres Lincoln did not put up with the John Kerrys of that day but would imprison or even hang them.
barbra ann
"Slavery was going to end no matter what the outcome within 20 years with the Industrial Revolution. "
If the south didn't have the most corrupt evil elitist leadership possible, maybe they would have ended slavery themselves, the honorable thing, instead of whining and killing and blaming Lincoln and the north.
What I find interesting is that even though Nast, the cartoonist, clearly opposes what he calls a "useless war," he still has the grace and manners to call the Union soldiers who died in it "heroes" -- which is right. Too many Americans during Vietnam did not understand why this is right, and don't today.
now, now....let's keep our Yankee obnoxiousness under control.......(before you get verbally jackslapped by your betters!)
And your point is WHAT!? The South was defending it's property rights. The Constitution protected those rights.
and you are leaving out the other "causes" mentioned in your misguided quest to prove your point.
Slavery was PART of the problem. The underlying issue was a meddling Federal Government, and a tyrant that wanted a stronger Federal system.
I agree with the "copperhead"......
Yes....but the difference is that Ole Abe would have done it WITHOUT a trial.
BTTT, both of you.
Ever notice how very few remember what a copperhead is, you almost never hear the term, but lots of folks know what scalawags and carpetbaggers are, and you hear the latter term used fairly regularly even in the North?
Reading threads like this, I can't say I'm surprised the term 'damnYankee' has managed to survive, either.
> Instead of a small federal government, we now have a leviathan that dictates policy to the 50 states. Lincoln is partially to blame for that.
And the slave holding Southern states... even more to blame.
Thanks, guys.
LOL !
Chance of birth'd have me fight for the CSA had I been alive then.
But one thing's for sure: I LOVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
By the way, did you notice the dark fellow behind the CSA man, staring up at the sky as if, perhaps, to say "it is finished", or "why hast thou forsaken me" or some such thing?
Lincoln could not hold the north together under tha banner of "Union!". He had to shift the war to a moral crusade against slavery. Lincoln's views of the blacks was no less than that of most southerners.
This post is so full of holes it won't hold water.
Well, the reason those terms survive, is that the "damn yankees" and "carpetbaggers" and whatnot have been crapping all over the South for 140 years. To the liberal elites in the Northeast and the West, those of us down here are nothing but a bunch of racist toothless inbred hicks who aren't smart enough to bow down to our betters in the Hollywood Hills and along Central Park East.
We've worked out our racial issues a hell of a lot better than the North has, usually at the point of a Federal gun (metaphorical or otherwise). Don't believe me? Compare race relations in Atlanta or Raleigh or Jackson or Richmond to, say, South Boston or Crown Heights or Phildephia or Detroit. And despite that, we STILL have to go, hat in hand, begging to Federal judges to make the slightest changes to anything involving elections. We're STILL held to a different standard than the rest of the country.
The irony is, there was much more of a spirit of reconciliation between the North and the South in this country immediately after that bloody and terrible (and, yes, largely senseless) war than there is now, 140 years later.
}:-)4
But which nation was it that allowed slavery to exist in the first place?
Sumeria?
Nast's sarcasm seems to be totally lost on you. He did not think it was a useless war, he fully supported the Union and Lincoln and this cartoon was a total damnation of the 1864 Democrat platform and the treasonous Copperheads of that party.
Although the analogy between the American Civil War and the War on Terror are not perfect, the comparisons to the level of hatred for Lincoln and Bush and the willingness to sacrafice the nation for political victory by the Democrat party both then and now are indeed valid comparisons.
The evil, supremicist, elitist southern leadership should all be dug up and hung IMO.
"Slavery was PART of the problem. The underlying issue was a meddling Federal Government, and a tyrant that wanted a stronger Federal system."
The best thing to do is not even respond to the smirking rabble-rousers who continually re-open old wounds. They love it and it shows what kind of people they are. They're resting on the laurels of people long dead. Remember, they outnumbered us 4 to 1 and their industrial capacity was 10 times what we had. They went to war not for some lofty principle but for the northern industrialist and bankers who continued to use slaves themselves.
You are correct....I forgot myself :)!
Thanks!
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.