Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
John S. Mosby post #454: "That would be the current crop of the completely “flipped” politics from lincoln’s time, and appealing to the “white guilt” repubs— but it does not wash with Southern conservatives...
"You see, the issue was always labor capital (and who would provide it) and it was a change in plantation owners which was envisioned and intended by the Union— the growing industrial oligarchs (railroads, carpetbaggers, thieves, scalawags, liars)... "
"The logical conclusion to all this as these powers moved to a “globalist” frontier, would be to put everyone who remains on the gubmint plantation..."
"We must ALL resist and not rise to this sophistic “MEME” you have posted— it’s purpose is diversionary, and part of an oft-used tactic of the Comintern..."
"Want to fight this new “slavery”? Then resist..."
You say, "it does not wash with Southern conservatives", and I'm telling you, you folks have it all backwards.
You say Lincoln wanted "a change in plantation owners", but Lincoln never owned a plantation -- Marse Jefferson Davis did.
You say Lincoln wanted to "put everyone who remains on the gubmint plantation" but Lincoln never owned a slave -- Marse Jeff did.
You say we should "not rise to this sophistic “MEME” you have posted" but this, your word, "MEME" is exactly correct!
The person who wanted to expand plantations was Jefferson Davis, not Abe Lincoln.
The person who destroyed the Constitution to protect slavery was Jefferson Davis, not Abe Lincoln.
The person who started and declared war on the United States to defend his "peculiar institution" was Jefferson Davis, not Abe Lincoln.
So, FRiend, if you want to talk about the new "gubmint plantation", and fighting against "slavery", then you're talking about Davis, not Lincoln.
All Lincoln did was respond and win the war Davis started.
And I'm saying, you folks need to straighten your heads out about that, before we'll have a serious effort to defeat the new Marse Jeff.
;-)
JCBreckenridge: "Which South Carolina and the Confederacy did not do."
The Confederacy's military assault on the US Army in Fort Sumter was its first major act of war against the United States.
JCBreckenridge: "Did the Confederacy invade the North? No."
Yes, the Confederacy invaded Union states and territories many times, and the first of those came before any Union troops "invaded" Confederate states.
Here again is my list of the more important Confederate invasions of the United States:
Not at all true.
First of all, Democrats won in 1856 without winning Ohio or New York.
Instead, they won New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California, along with the entire South, giving them 174 electoral votes, or 22 more than the 152 needed.
And a united Democrat ticket in 1860 could easily repeat that, even adding Ohio's 23 electors by switching only 11,000 votes.
So, I'll say it again: in 1860 North and South Democrats won 84 electoral votes in 12 states.
However, they won enough votes combined to carry five more states (California, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia) with another 46 electors.
That brings them to 130 of the 152 needed.
And those remaining 22 votes were available in Indiana and Illinois, which Democrats won in 1856, and could win in 1860 with a switch of only 11,000 voters.
I'm saying, that's the "enthusiasm gap" caused by splitting the Democrats in half.
Further, another 10,000 voters switching in Ohio would bring the Democrat total to 177, and 36,000 switchers in Pennsylvania gets them to 204, and now we're talking "landslide" victory for united Democrats in 1860.
So, FRiend, those are the numbers.
Yes, deny them all you want, but the fact remains, a united Democrat victory was just as possible in 1860 as it had been in 1856.
It never happened because Southern Fire Eaters didn't want victory, they wanted secession, and engineered it.
And this bastard Union and socialist FedGov ™, that I hate (nay despise), that we were bequeathed in blood by the Illinois Butcher™ "Over 600,000 served" is any better? The founders would laugh in your face. Is it possible that the South would be free now, at least more in line with original republic? Oh the horror. /sarc You are an idiot.
Piss on you, piss on Lincoln. He sits in hell.
A free rifle and ammo and authority to shoot Yankees is a tempting proposition for any Southerner. IMO slavery was an issue drummed up as cause bellum out of convenience.
No amount of research is ever going to reveal that to you. As you are not one of us.
OK. Let’s leave aside the question of whether war was ever declared on any state, that’s a bit of a technicality.
Virginia waged war on the United States starting on April 16/17 (moving to attack before the final secession vote at the convention, BTW), attacking Union forces at Harper’s Ferry and Norfolk. All this was before the referendum on May 23 that “officially” took Virginia out of the Union. IOW, the State of Virginia attacked Union troops while it was (even by its own theory of secession) still legally a part of the Union.
With the “official” secession vote the State then joined the Confederacy, which had already legally (by its own lights) and officially declared war on the USA. By so doing VA of course was itself declaring war on the US.
The Union first moved troops into Virginia the on May 24, the day after VA officially joined the war against the USA.
So my question is on what basis do you claim Virginia was a “loyal state” on which the USA waged (we won’t quibble about “declared”) war? If waging war on the US and joining a confederacy that officially is at war with the US constitutes being a “loyal state,” what would a state have to do to be “disloyal” in your book?
The arsenal was federal property and Virginia had no legal rights to it. Sending troops to seize it was an act of aggression on the part of the commonwealth. The first act by either side, so I don't see why you complain about federal troops in Alexandria. Virginia had been actively participating in the rebellion for more than a month prior.
And while the referendum may have been on May 23rd, the Confederate Congress admitted Virginia as a state on May 7th. I guess that referendum really didn't mean anything at all, did it?
With the exception of the first 13, the states didn't 'freely enter' anything. They were admitted, only after they had gotten the approval of a majority of the other states through a vote in the House and the Senate. So if a state is allowed to enter only with permission then shouldn't leaving require the same?
The CSA’s greatest crime was its eternal tainting of the idea of states’ rights.
You cannot now even bring up the term, which is IMO a perfectly legitimate one, without aligning yourself in the eyes of most Americans with slavers and traitors.
That most Americans view it this way is just a fact. You are welcome to believe them wrong, but your opinion doesn’t change the numbers.
I wonder how King George III would have answered that question.
The Lincoln Coven is spreading lies and mis information on Free Republic is helping that situation? You are a tainted < expletive deleted >
I don’t entirely disagree with your math. A united Democratic Party could certainly have come a great deal closer and possibly won the election.
However, comparing the 1860 election to the 1856 election is an exercise in futility. 1856 wasn’t a “normal” election. The opposition to the Democrats was split several ways, so it was as big an advantage for the Democrats as the 1860 election was for the Republicans.
In the 1852 election the Whigs were in the process of falling apart, over the issue of slavery, oddly, despite slavery being only a minor issue at the time.
So the last really “normal” two-party election was that of 1848, which was won by the Whigs.
BTW, in 48, 52 and 56 the winner drew a minority of the popular vote, just like in 1860. In fact, as the nation became more polarized over the unimportant issue of slavery, the percentage of the popular vote taken by the winner went down with each of these election.
Well, AFAIK, nobody is claiming that Virginia was loyal to King George.
You are claiming that Virginia was still loyal to the Union when federal troops invaded on May 24, 1861. I’d like to see your explanation of why the State deserved to be described as “loyal” on that date.
What you Neo Yankee thugs fail to realize that the USA was actually a real republic at one point. You are looking at the 19th century thru a 21st century lens. You all seem so foolish....
Because, FRiend, most (not all) my Southern relatives' ancestors were Unionists, and to them you Southern flatlanders -- slave-owners or not -- were the "haughty bastards".
They didn't like you, and they didn't want any part of your stinking slavery, secession and war.
central_va: "A free rifle and ammo and authority to shoot Yankees is a tempting proposition for any Southerner.
IMO slavery was an issue drummed up as cause bellum out of convenience."
You forget that as late as 1856, Southern and Northern Democrats combined to win the election, which resulted in the Supreme Court's 7-2 Dred Scott decision, all but legalizing slavery in every state.
One or two more decisions like that would have made abolitionism unconstitutional.
And those were the stakes in 1860, but Southern Fire Eaters didn't want to play that political game, they wanted secession and they wanted war.
So they engineered it.
Now if you ask "why", the reason certainly had nothing to do with "haughty New England bastards", since they are not mentioned in any secessionist documents.
No, their reason was the obvious one, which they explained in great detail: to protect the future of their "peculiar institution", slavery.
May 7 was the day after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
So when Virginia joined the Confederacy, it joined a country already at declared war with the United States
So you’re saying that the Confederacy was their own country? Then Lincoln invaded another country without permission from congress.
Gosh, what was Virginia and South Carolina? And Texas was a part of that deal too, as was Georgia and North Carolina.
Again - the Union had no constitutional right to apply force to keep the South in.
I would say Virginia was showing loyalty to herself, not the Confederacy.
Fair enough.
But you really ought to stop saying Lincoln invaded a loyal state, because in doing so you are implying that the state was loyal to the Union. Which is just factually incorrect.
“The arsenal was federal property and Virginia had no legal rights to it”.
Oh. So what you’re saying is that the Confederacy had claims on every single piece of Union artillery and stores in the North - that their taxdollars had paid and contributed to?
Did they ever receive compensation from the North?
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.