Posted on 06/01/2013 3:13:19 PM PDT by BigReb555
The time is long overdue for school teachers throughout this nation to teach not only the historical facts about Abraham Lincoln, but also those about Jefferson Davis.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Were Davis’ 100,000 being called up for an invasion of the north? Or were they called to defend against Lincoln’s expected invasion of the south?
Washington was not in the Continental Congress when independence was declared. He was the general commanding militia forces opposing the illegal and unconstitutional usurpations of the British Army at the time.
In response to the illegal and unconstitutional usurpations of the British Army, the Continental Congress declared independence.
By Contrast: The southern insurrection was not begun in response to unconstitutional acts. It was begun in response to the stated intent of Lincoln and the Republican party to end slavery in the territories, which was constitutional, because of Congress’ plenary power over the territories.
The insurrection was started to further, extend and protect the horrific institution of human slavery, which should forever blacken the name of all those who supported that insurrection and those who would seek to justify it.
Glad you admit that Jeff Davis called for 100,000 men to support his insurrection before Lincoln called up 75,000 men to quell it.
“Washington was not in the Continental Congress when independence was declared. He was the general commanding militia forces opposing the illegal and unconstitutional usurpations of the British Army at the time.”
You’re making a distinction without a difference. Washington supported seceding from Great Britain.
A slaveowner who inherited a slave and sought to free them (example : US Grant who freed a slave he inherited within a week) would not be so evil, as a slaveowner who sought to further, extend, and protect the horrific institution.
Yet all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of G-d.
So were the Founders evil or not for owning slaves?
So by that simplistic logic, the USA was an evil country prior to 1860. ( I disagree)
How do you explain that slavery was legal in Union states before, during and after the civil war?
It is false to assert that Washington supported a pretended legal secession from Great Britain.
Washington initially supported resistance against the usurpation of the Parliament, and later revolution against the British Crown which used military force in support of those usurpations.
The colonies were independent, self governing possessions of the British Crown. They taxed themselves, provided military forces to the British Crown. The English Parliament had no authority to tax the colonies. It was the pretense that they could tax the colonies, or punish the colonies using military force that was the cause of the revolution.
By contrast, the states in the insurrection began their insurrection despite the authority of the US to collect taxes, and despite the US not using military force against them.
Slavery was legal because some people of good will were unable to identify a means to legally end it short of war.
“On a different note, history books have been scrubbed and rewritten to include the progressive perversion of events.”
When I was younger I earnestly studied the war between the states. My greatest enjoyment was reading works by those who participated and were written within the first 30 years of so of the conflict.
The first outright propagandist revisionist history I found was a 1915, 50th anniversary book. It read like it was written by a panel of the most liberal historians today.
Why didn’t the EP free *any* slaves under Union control?
The Union wasn’t up for it?
My position is the institution of slavery is an evil institution.
A slave owner who freed his slave, as U.S. Grant did within a week of inheriting said slave, would not be evil, though the institution would still be evil.
A slave owner who raped slaves, who paid kidnappers to capture slaves, who directed the torture of his slaves, who went to court in an attempt to keep freed slaves from enjoying freedom, and broke up families to sell slaves to harsh masters would be evil. All those things were done by R.E. Lee. Further, Lee supported war to further, extend, and protect slavery, directing the murder under pretended authority of even his own men in support of that horrific evil cause.
Absent the insurrection, or amendment, the US federal government had no authority to free slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamation was legal only as a wartime measure to weaken the insurrection. Of course the EP did free slaves, as the insurrection lost ground and they came under US control. Only about 60,000 were actually freed by the 13th Amendment. The rest had been freed by the action of the EP and the advancing US Army.
Juneteenth is the holiday celebrating freedom of slaves in Texas as they learned about the EP.
The institution was evil.
John Brown thought that it was so evil that he would make war, or even give his body to be hanged to end it.
Others thought it was not quite that evil, and sought to end it by education of slaves, giving freedom to selected slaves, and putting restrictions on it.
Some people grew up with it and didn’t think much about it.
Some people supported slavery, and thought that anyone who said nasty things about it was evil.
Some people didn’t have much moral compass, and just enjoyed the pleasures of slave rape as they were able. Noone ever accused Lee of rape after slavery was no longer evil.
Some began with one idea, thinking slavery appropriate because of what they thought was the different nature of the African, but learned over time that the people who happened to be slaves had similar capability, aspirations, and deserved similar treatment.
North Carolina, after many years of permitting freedmen to vote, changed their constitution to forbid it in 1835. In response to years of voting by those of African ancestry, slave owners increased restrictions, to further, protect and extend slavery.
Some, like Jeff Davis, didn’t learn as quickly as others.
It wasn’t an argument pelly, it was a simple statement of fact. And I hadn’t noticed them saying that you were a moron but I would tend to agree.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Mussolini fallacy, or the reverse Mussolini fallacy? Mussolini spoke several languages, so anyone who speaks several languages must be evil like Mussolini.
Mussolini was, of course, bad, but did some good things. Washington was good, but did some bad things.
Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do some good things. You must, if you are honest, consider a particular action as good or bad on its merits, not based on whether someone or another took that position.
Glad I could help you with that.
“A slave owner who raped slaves, who paid kidnappers to capture slaves, who directed the torture of his slaves, who went to court in an attempt to keep freed slaves from enjoying freedom, and broke up families to sell slaves to harsh masters would be evil. All those things were done by R.E. Lee.”
Cite your source for your claim that Lee raped and tortured slaves.
” I hadn’t noticed them saying that you were a moron but I would tend to agree.”
And what are we to take from this? That you are in high school?
What’s this we crap - you got a mouse in your pocket?
http://leepapers.blogspot.com/
Source for Lee raping slaves.
His family members wrote him letters complaining about the white children being birthed by Arlington slaves.
The lady who was given access to his slave ledger books sanitized them because she grew up idolizing Lee, but felt compelled to put in hints of the horrific truth so revealed.
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.