Posted on 10/17/2006 5:18:26 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Your 'courtesy' is as out of character and is it is misplaced.
First, I don't what kind of kicks that someone like Non-Sequitur gets from stalking the Civil War threads. It would seem he/she would have something better to do with their lives.
Isn't combating the southron lies, misquotes, and exaggerations reason enough?
Oh my goodness, PeaRidge disapproves. Caught in his double standard he accuses others of arrogance, which is a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one.
In the past you have had great fun passing off your non-sequiturs and watching people rush to deal with your illogical postings, but it is becoming old.
As is your's.
Why don't you try posting some things that lead to positive discussion rather than using factual duds to misrepresent and berate.
When I have time. Right now trying to deal your 'factual duds' is keeping me pretty busy.
And in the grand scheme of things it turned out they were wrong.
N S ,mustn't have a life , only gets off on trying to put others down.
Oh I do. This is just a hobby.
Your perspective on loyalty is oddly curious, hypocritical and applies modern thinking to yesterday's rules of behavior and learning.
Then you must find the first sentence in the Preamble of the US Constitution "oddly curious".
To repeat, "Your arrogance is affecting your judgment, and it is becoming obvious to many people here."
Your Cotton Candy assertions don't stand up, and you act as if you do not notice it when others see through you.
Why?
Washington's decision to fight against the country of his birth was made long before that was written.
One cannot sensibly argue that Washington was a hero, while simultaneously calling Lee a traitor. They both remained loyal to a cause that they believed in and to a homeland that they individually defined.
Or I guess from the POV of those who feel that Lee was a traitor:
"One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter"
Well, Pea, if I had any respect at all for your opinion then I might be upset. But I've been observing you and your friends for some time now, and I know better than to care at all what you think of me. So now where does that leave us?
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character"
It makes all the difference in the world. The rebs could change their constitution but they couldn't change history.
The nation, the USA and not the states, was the engine of independence and union.
The states are granted a measure of sovereignty by the people of the US- the states are not mere provinces of the center like foreigners and the uneducated here may think. But there is no "magical omnipotence of states rights" such as the southern Democratic party always maintained.
Lee was at least consistent. he fought for Virginia, not the CSA. When Virginia was licked, Lee was ready to throw in the towel. But he seemed to have no compunction against using the blood of Texans, Georgians, etc. to defend his "nation". Had Virginia stayed in the Union, I suspect Lee would have had no problem leading a federal army to suppress Confederate rebellion in Georgia or Texas.
If you can put someone else on the defensive and wax on and on about some supposed deception, you figure you've "won" in some way. All the better if you get someone else to melt down, or if you simply label their responses "meltdowns." It's all a very familiar game by now.
I put a limited amount of time into these threads now, and rely on what I can find quickly. And yes, it's pretty easy to find the Charleston Mercury saying in 1860 that slavery was a large part of their quarrel with the United States of America. That was more than enough to disprove your contention.
Since then, I have been able to find a text of the editorial. It's here. Notice the first sentences:
The issue before the country is the extinction of slavery. No man of common sense, who has observed the progress of events, and who is not prepared to surrender the institution, with the safety and independence of the South, can doubt that the time for action has come—now or never. The Southern States are now in the crisis of their fate; and, if we read aright the signs of the times, nothing is needed for our deliverance, but that the ball of revolution be set in motion.
That is pretty d*mn*d clear -- virtually unambiguous: "The issue before the country is the extinction of slavery." It's the very first sentence of the editorial, for heaven's sake. There's no possible argument that slavery was very much on the minds of the Mercury's editors. Now about whether slavery was the means to attain or preserve "the safety and independence of the South" or whether "the safety and independence of the South" was aimed at preserving slavery people can argue, but that slavery was very much a part of the picture, that in some way it went to the heart of "the safety and independence of the South" there's not much disagreement possible.
The editorial goes on in the next paragraph (after some material that you can find on the web page):
What is really essential is this—that by the action of one or more States, there shall be the reasonable probability that a Southern Confederacy will be formed. We say probability,—because there is no certainty in the future of human affairs; and in the position in which the South will be placed by the election of an Abolitionist white man as President of the United States, and an Abolitionist colored man as Vice President of the United States, we should not hesitate, somewhat to venture. The existence of slavery is at stake. The evils of submission are too terrible for us to risk them, from vague fears of failure, or a jealous distrust of our sister Cotton States. We think, therefore, that the approaching Legislature should provide for the assembling of a Convention of the people of South Carolina, as soon as it is ascertained that Messrs. LINCOLN and HAMLIN will have a majority in the Electoral Colleges for President and Vice President of the United States.
"The existence of slavery is at stake." That's also pretty unambiguous. Other things may be involved in the "evils of submission," and people can argue about them back and forth about how important they were. But it's clear that the abolition of slavery was among the much feared "evils," and likely that it was the chief "evil" or was the thing that would cause the main or greatest evil.
Notice the reference to Hannibal Hamlin as "an Abolitionist colored man." I don't know if that's a slur or high praise today, but at the time it would have been regarded as a clear attack and a low blow. I thought only Lincoln and the Republicans talked like that, yet here are secessionists -- tolerant and modernly multicultural -- trying to score points with their audience by calling Hamlin "a colored man." What gives? Say it ain't so, squattie! Or were they praising Hamlin after all?
Now let's look at the editorial you cite. It's here. Do you see anything different about it? Hint: it doesn't urge action, it celebrates an action already taken. Hence it doesn't give reasons to drum up support, it simply glorifies the step taken. To be sure it urges solidity behind the secessionist movement, but it doesn't lay out the reasons for secession.
The editorial you cited isn't a rational argument for secession. Rather, it's a breathless account of the secession proceedings punctuated with rapturous rhetoric. You're not going to find out what motivated the secessionists by reading it, you'll just discover how they glorified and mythologized their own actions.
Kobrick may have been in college when he wrote his article, but he writes well, and it looks like he put a lot of work into it. Did you really read his article at all?
Kobrick devotes 4 paragraphs out of 18 pages to the Rawle controversy, or to be generous, 2 pages out of 18. It's not the primary focus of his article at all. It's a controversy that was resolved in 1909, for crying out loud!
After referring to the Rawle matter Kobrick moves on to more significant matters that are still controversial. I'm not sure he's right about those matters, but I doubt any of us is in a position simply to dismiss his effort.
From previous postings and your comments here, you seem to be looking down upon Lee for his actions. Have not virtually all Generals used the blood of others to achieve that which they are fighting for?
Did not Grant use the blood of the Irish to achieve his purposes? Did Patton not use the lives of many allies to achieve his goals?
And I fully agree that if Lee had been born and raised in Maryland, he might very well have fought on the side of the North, after all he was a soldier doing a soldiers duty regardless of his feelings for or against "the cause". This is exactly as all soldiers should do.
I have never condemned a soldier, such as Rommel, for his actions on battlefield, as I believe he was a soldier, simply doing his duty. I will condemn soldiers for actions which were beyond the pale, but that is an entirely different issue.
You should have continued on because the next phrase is not found in the real Constitution either, "...in order to form a permanent federal government..." Not a more perfect union. Not "in order to form a loose confederation of states." But to form a permanent federal government. I wonder how secession would have been viewed by the Davis regime?
The best cure for confederate nostalgia is to read what they actually said and did.
The behavior of the rebs toward Unionist East Tennessee certainly sounds like control freaking. But I guess the rebs would counter with their magic voodoo of states rights.
Throughout history any outrage against American values has been excused by Southern Democrats through the miracle of states rights.
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.