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.
IMPORTANT LETTER FROM J. WILKES BOOTH His original Purpose Was to Take Mr. Lincoln A Prisoner.---His Reasons For His Action. (From The Philadelphia Press, April 19, 1865)
We have just received the following letter, written by John Wilkes Booth, and placed by him in the hands of his brother-in-law, J.S. Clarke. It was written by him in November last, and left with J. S. Clarke in a sealed envelope, and addressed to himself, in his own handwriting. In the same envelope were some United States bonds and oil stocks. This letter was opened by Mr. Clarke for the first time on Monday last, and immediately handed by him to Marshall Milward, who has kindly placed it in our hands
Most unmistakably it proves that he must for many months have contemplated seizing the person of the late President. It is, however, doubtful whether he imagined the black deed
which has plunged the nation into the deepest gloom, and at the same time awakened it to a just and righteous indignation:-
_____ ______,1864
My Dear Sir:--You may use this as you think best. But as some may wish to know when, who, and why, and as I do not know how to direct it, I give it (in the words of your master):--
"To whom it may concern"
Right or wrong, God judge me, not man. For be my motive good or bad, of one thing I am sure, the lasting condemnation of the North.
I love peace more than life. Have loved the Union beyond expression. For four years have I waited, hoped, and prayed for the dark clouds to break, and for a restoration of our former sunshine. To wait longer would be a crime. All hope for peace is dead. My prayers have proved as idle as my hopes. God's will be done. I go to see and share the bitter end.
I have ever held that the South were right. The very nomination of Abraham Lincoln, four years ago, spoke plainly war--war upon Southern rights and institutions. His election prove it. "Await an overt act." Yes; till you are bound and plundered. What folly! The South were wise. Who thinks of argument or patience when the finger of his enemy presses on the trigger? In a foreign war, I, too, could say. "Country right or wrong." But in a struggle such as ours (where the brother tries to pierce the brother's heart), for God's sake choose the right. When a country like this spurns justice from her side, she forfeits the allegiance of every honest freeman, and should leave him, untrammeled by any fealty soever, to act as his conscience may approve.
People of the North, to hate tyranny, to love liberty and justice, to strike at wrong and oppression, was the teaching of our fathers. The study of our early history will not let me forget it, and may it never.
This country was formed for the white, not for the black man. And, looking upon African slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our Constitution, I, for one, have ever considered it one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us) that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation. Witness heretofore our wealth and power; witness their elevation and enlightenment above their race elsewhere. I have lived among it most of my life, and have seen less harsh treatment from master to man that I have beheld in the North from father to son. Yet Heaven knows, no one would be more willing to do more for the negro race than I, could I but see a way to still better their condition.
But Lincoln's policy is only preparing the way for their total annihilation . The South are not, nor have they been, fighting for the continuance of slavery. The first battle of Bull Run did away with that idea. Their causes since for war have been as noble and greater far than those that urged our fathers on. Even should we allow they were wrong at the beginning of the contest, cruelty and injustice have made the wrong become the right, and they stand now (before the wonder and admiration of the world) as a noble band of patriotic heroes. Hereafter, reading of their deeds, Thermopylae will be forgotten.
When I aided in the capture and execution of John Brown (who was a murderer on our western border, and who was fairly tried and convicted, before an impartial judge and jury, of treason, and who, by-the-way, has since been made a god), I was proud of my little share in the transaction, for I deemed it my duty, and that I was helping our common country to perform an act of justice. But what was a crime in poor John Brown is now considered (by themselves) as the greatest and only virtue of the whole Republican party.
Strange transmigration! Vice to become a virtue simply because more indulge in it!
I thought then, as now, that the abolitionist were the only traitors in the land, and that the entire party deserved the same fate as poor old Brown; not because they wish to abolish slavery, but on account of the means they have ever endeavored to use to effect that abolition. If Brown were living, I doubt whether he himself would set slavery against the Union. Most, or many in the North do, and openly, curse the Union if the South are to return and retain a single right guaranteed to them by every tie which we once revered as sacred. The South can make no choice. It is either extermination or slavery for themselves (worse than death) to draw from. I know my choice.
I have also studied hard to discover upon what grounds the right of a State to secede has been denied, when our very name, United States, and the Declaration of Independence, both provide for secession. But there is no time for words, I write in haste. I know how foolish I shall be deemed for undertaking such a step as this, where, on the one side, I have many friends and every thing to make me happy, where my profession alone has gained me an income of more than twenty thousand dollars a year, and where my great personal ambition in my profession has such a great field for labor. On the other hand, the South has never bestowed upon me one kind word; a place now where I have no friends, except beneath the sod; a place where I must either become a private soldier or a beggar. To give up all of the former for the latter, besides my mother and sisters, whom I love so dearly (although they so widely differ with me in opinion), seems insane; but God is my judge. I love justice more (Heaven pardon me if wrong), more than a happy home.
I have never been upon a battle-field; but oh! my countrymen, could you all but see the reality or effects of this horrid war as I have seen them (in every State, save Virginia), I know you would think like me, and would pray the Almighty to create in the Northern mind a sense of right and justice (even should it possess no seasoning of mercy), and that he would dry up this sea of blood between us, which is daily growing wider. Alas! poor country, is she to meet her threatened doom? Four years ago, I would have given a thousand lives to see her remain (as I had always know her) powerful and unbroken. And even now I would hold my life as naught to see her what she was. Oh! my friends, if the fearful scenes of the past four years had never been enacted, or if what has been had been but a frightful dream, from which we could now awake, with what overflowing hearts could we bless our God and pray for his continued favor! How I have loved the old flag can never now be known. A few years since, and the entire world could boast of none so pure and spotless. But I have of late been seeing and hearing of the bloody deeds, of which she has been made the emblem, and would shudder to think how changed she had grown, Oh! how I have longed to see her break from the mist of blood and death that circles round her folds, spoiling her beauty and tarnishing her honor. But no, day by day has she been dragged deeper and deeper into cruelty and oppression, till now (in my eyes) her once bright red stripes look like bloody gashes on the face of heaven. I look now upon my early admiration of her glories as a dream. My love (as things stand to-day) is for the South alone. Nor do I deem it a dishonor in attempting to make for her a prisoner of this man, to whom she owes so much of misery. If success attend me, I go penniless to her side. They say she has found that "last ditch" which the North have so long derided and that it is impolitic to goad an enemy to madness. Should I reach her in safety, and find it true, I will proudly beg permission to triumph or die in that same "ditch" by her side.
A Confederate doing duty upon his own responsibility.
J. Wilkes Booth
Wow!
Great post! Booth's letter displays the same contradictions carried on by the Confederate glorifiers today. For example, Booth claims that "The South are not, nor have they been, fighting for the continuance of slavery", yet before that he had found it necessary to state that "This country was formed for the white, not for the black man" and that African slavery was "one of the greatest blessings ... that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation", and later in the letter he trashes abolitionists.
Until he shot Lincoln, Booth apparently kept his sympathies for the Confederates a closely guarded secret, though. In fact, he had accepted an invitation to attend a party scheduled for April 15, 1865, at the headquarters of my great great grandfather's Union cavalry brigade to celebrate Lee's surrender. But the night before the scheduled party was of course the night he shot Lincoln.
This country was formed for the white, not for the black man
I guess that's why Lincoln favored Black codes which prevented blacks from living in his state of Illinois.. Because he favored an all white state.
Good gawd man... Give it up...
I've never defended Lincoln, so what is your point, that J. Wilkes Booth was a hero to you?
Boothead: thanks for the great post. I was in Washington bacin 1960 and saw this letter in the Smithsonian or the Archives. I thought at the time, how much we had been lied to....He weas characterized as a "crazed actor.... It brings to mind Ken Starr; Kathleen Willey; Linda Tripp; Judge Hale; Jim McDougal; Juanita Brodrick; and Paula ---
When I read this letter again, with today's perspective, I feel this letter could have been written as an open letter to the Liberals who defend this vicious and vile administration. So much harm has been done to our nation.. I weep with fear for my grandchildren and the many like themGod, what does the future hold for them with the way our nation is going today.
I have thought about this letter several times and wished I could find a copy...I remember parts of it...ezpecially as to what he would give kup so gladly to change the status quo. I have always thought Lincoln as a hero, but had that feeling inside that it might have been wrong. My Grandfather and his brother died from wounds in that war...He fought on the Union side. My mother was one year old when he died... Stretch in Apple Valley, Ca.
Boothead: thanks for the great post. I was in Washington bacin 1960 and saw this letter in the Smithsonian or the Archives. I thought at the time, how much we had been lied to....He weas characterized as a "crazed actor.... It brings to mind Ken Starr; Kathleen Willey; Linda Tripp; Judge Hale; Jim McDougal; Juanita Brodrick; and Paula ---
When I read this letter again, with today's perspective, I feel this letter could have been written as an open letter to the Liberals who defend this vicious and vile administration. So much harm has been done to our nation.. I weep with fear for my grandchildren and the many like themGod, what does the future hold for them with the way our nation is going today.
I have thought about this letter several times and wished I could find a copy...I remember parts of it...ezpecially as to what he would give kup so gladly to change the status quo. I have always thought Lincoln as a hero, but had that feeling inside that it might have been wrong. My Grandfather and his brother died from wounds in that war...He fought on the Union side. My mother was one year old when he died... Stretch in Apple Valley, Ca.
YIKES! FORMAT!!
When I read this letter again, with today's perspective, I feel this letter could have been written as an open letter to the Liberals who defend this vicious and vile administration.
No wonder you call yourself "Stretch".
Lincoln did NOT favor "black rights" during all the time he was in Illinois. He was emphatically anti-Abolitionist. But after being elected President, over time his views changed as he had to deal with not only the radicals in his own party, but the Southern sympathizers who were equally obnoxious (and many of them were Union officers).
The REAL change came when, because of the difficulty of the war (many forget that it was only in the last year that the Union began consistently to win battles; as a result Lincoln was not even expected to get the Republican nomination for President as late as Spring of 1864), the subsequent drop in volunteer military enrollments and the increasing resistance to conscription, led the U.S. to begin active recruitment of African-Americans to the Union Army. From that point onward, Lincoln began to have serious reservations about the notion that the African-Americans serving in the Union forces in particular, and their race in general, must at the war's conclusion be kept from full rights of citizenship. But he was never sure how enfranchisment could be practically achieved, because he couldn't fathom how the black race and the white were ever to live together.
On April 11, 1865, Lincoln made a speech from the White House, at the conclusion of which he said "It may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the South."
What that announcement was to be he didn't confide in anyone, and there was a great deal of conjecture, especially in that he would announce universal suffrage beginning in the reconstructed Southern states. That isn't known (and historians don't really even think it likely) but that was one of the rumors left by that cryptic remark.
When John Wilkes Booth heard the statement as he stood outside the White House that evening, he was CONVINCED that it "means nigger citizenship", as he remarked to a companion. "That is the last speech he will ever make." Consequently he assassinated the President of the United States three days later.
The account of witnesses and those close to Booth at the time indicate that Booth decided that night to kill the President, EXPRESSLY BECAUSE Lincoln intended to give the vote to the African-Americans, or so Booth thought.
Booth shot Lincoln to strike a blow against this threat, as he deemed it.
That, sir, is history.
Well stated. The missives calling you a "damned Yankee scalawag/carpetbagger" will follow shortly I'm sure.
...the subsequent drop in volunteer military enrollments and the increasing resistance to conscription, led the U.S. to begin active recruitment of African-Americans to the Union Army. From that point onward, Lincoln began to have serious reservations about the notion that the African-Americans serving in the Union forces in particular, and their race in general, must at the war's conclusion be kept from full rights of citizenship.
I understand that Frederick Douglass was very influential in this regard.
There are certain facets of this letter which make me doubt its authenticity.........
There are certain facets of this letter which make me doubt its authenticity.........
Such as?
I understand that Frederick Douglass was very influential in this regard.
He was, somewhat, but it was really the triumvirate of Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, who served as Secretary of the Treasury during Lincoln's first term, and was "kicked upstairs" to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just prior to his second, who were constantly at the President to act for full emancipation AND suffrage.
NOTE that these folks were hardly friends of Lincoln. Although Douglass was kindly disposed toward him, the rest of them plotted against his renomination, and Chase was the center of a ring of conspirators to place HIMSELF at the head of the Republican ticket in 1864.
The reason that I know that Lincoln was "right" in his direction at the time of the war is that he was almost UNIVERSALLY hated and villified by the extremists on both sides.
Booth's assassination of Lincoln MADE the darkness of Reconstruction what it was, because he removed the ONLY moderating influence in the Republican administration; Andrew Johnson was toast from the moment he assumed the mantle of the Presidency. Lincoln was the only real friend with power on the Union side that the South had, and Booth killed him. Sic Semper Stupidus.
Most abolitionists were in favor of eliminating slavery, but not in giving the Negro equal rights. They were more than willing to allow the black man to remain down-trodden as long as he wasn't owned by another man.
Here's a letter I found a few years ago while searching microfilmed newspapers from the Civil War. I thought you'd be interested in hearing how one Union soldier felt about the slavery issue. Note that this was written 7 months before the war ended.
The following letter was widely published in several of the newspapers of New York State in late 1864. It was discovered in the 10/15/1864 issue of the Poughkeepsie Telegraph:
A Soldiers Letter
"We have been favored by an old resident of Mabbettsville, in this county with the following interesting letter written to him by a nephew in the army, dated Morris Island, S.C. September 24, 1864
Dear Uncle:--Your good advice I will try and follow. I tell you, George B. McClellan is the only man, that can carry the old ship of State safely through; already we are drifting near the rock that will submerge the noble ship, and we need a man at the helm that will take her out into the broad ocean and guide her toward and into the port of Peace. I say there is too much negro about this matter; only look at the thousands of valuable lives that have been sacrificed for the black man, but my opinion is the South are not fighting for slavery now, but for their honor; but the present administration are continually harping on the negro. They say we are determined to break the bonds of every slave--or disunion. God forbid I should ever have those feelings. No, no. The Union must and shall be preserved. Let the negro go. The white man must rule and reign.
The noble and tried patriot to-day stands before the American people for the high position of President of these United States. His enemies will ask you what he has ever done to entitle him to occupy the presidential chair? He has done much. Why did he not do more? Simply because he was never supported by the Administration as he should have been; troops were withheld from him, when he called loudly for them. The great secret was, he was too popular with the people and soldier. The Republicans were afraid of him. But thank God he is as much beloved to-day as ever. The soldiers love him, and when their votes are counted you will find we will roll-up such a majority for General George B. McClellan that will astonish the country. He is our choice, and if you could have witnessed as I did the scene that transpired when he was relieved from command, it would have made your heart (though it were adament) melt to see the tears trickle down the cheek of the war worn veteran and the raw recruit when the news reached them, but I trust the day of deliverance is at hand.
Dear Uncle, though you may have never engaged in politics before in your life, I implore you to put your shoulder to the wheel, and every chance you have don't neglect the opportunity of urging the claim of Little Mac upon your friends. Please tell them to stand by him. I hope Old Duchess [county] will roll up a large majority for him. I must close as it is near 10 o'clock at night. Please write me a few lines.
Your nephew,
Edwin A. Hoag."
Frankly, I don't agree with his feelings on McClellan. In reality, Little Mac was a dog. What he would have done with more troops is beyond me. He never used the ones he had.
Booth's assassination of Lincoln MADE the darkness of Reconstruction what it was, because he removed the ONLY moderating influence in the Republican administration;
Not entirely. Grant fought Johnson tooth and nail to hold on to voting rights for blacks, largely because blacks had fought in the war for the North in large numbers.
After Johnson's term, Grant held two terms where these rights were actively maintained. After his second term, Grant chose not to run, and in the deal in Congress that came from that election, Northern troops were removed from the South, Southern planters and Union manufacturers walked arm in arm down the aisles of Congress and the blacks got the Jim Crow laws.
Grant is highly underrated. No one else dared to do what he did until Eisenhower. That makes him a man way ahead of his time.
That's an interesting bit of info. I'm slowly working my way OUT of the Civil War era into the era of reconstruction. Thanks for the perspective.
Little Mac put on a good show. He took good of the men. He also dreaded to use them in battle because he could not bear to see them killed. His idea of a good campaign was one of successful maneuver and overwhelming siege with few casualties. Williamsburg set the example for them with him, and until the 7 days, McClellen looked like a winner. Of course, he wasn't but he did play the part quite from viewpoint of the man in field. The first year of the war carried all the real romance of the times, and volunteers of first year of the Army of the Potomac always associated this with him. The only man with more badly botched chances to finish off Bobby Lee was Meade.
Most abolitionists were in favor of eliminating slavery, but not in giving the Negro equal rights. They were more than willing to allow the black man to remain down-trodden as long as he wasn't owned by another man.
I would like to see some documentation to back up this statement. Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison were two leading abolitionists who do not fit your description. Certainly there were anti-negro elements in the Union Army. The biographer of my Great Great Grandfather's Illinois cavalry regiment tells an interesting story about a racist surgeon's helper who was tricked into helping to bath and dress a black man in the dark who became very iritated when he lit a candle and discovered who he was working on. This suggests to me that such men in the Union Army were in the minority and thus suitable for making the butt of a prank. By the way, the soldier in this story was subsequently transfered because of his racism and he eventually was captured and died in a Conferate prison. And McClellan was of course defeated in his bid to unseat Lincoln.
That's an interesting bit of info. I'm slowly working my way OUT of the Civil War era into the era of reconstruction. Thanks for the perspective
I know the feeling. I came to realize one day that Grant never finished his memoirs. There clearly should have been a volume on his presidency, but cancer took him a year or two early.
A very important volume for historians.
Spend some time on the Slave Trade. That is a real eye opener, and it will help you see why the restoration went the way it did.
Frederick Douglass did play a big role in getting Stanton to push for organizing black units in the north. Two of his sons served in Massachusetts units. Also pushing for black recruitment was Gov. John A. Andrew of Massachusetts.
If the government was going to provide full citizenship and benefits after the war to blacks who had served the Union, they had a long way to go. Within the Union Army, a battle was going on to provide the black recruit equal pay as his white counterpart. They had been promised the same pay, rations and clothing when they had enlisted, but 6 months later, they discovered that that promise was a lie. It took 18 months for the federal government to pass legislation putting black soldiers on equal footing with the whites. And during that time, the Massachusetts units refused to accept the lesser pay. According to one officer in the 55th Massachusetts: "They have an original argument about not taking the $7.00 a month. They say that he who refuses is not so much a nigger in the world's eye as he was before, but he who takes it makes himself three times more of a nigger." Even when the state of Massachusetts passed a separate subsidy to make up the difference in the pay, the men of the 54th and 55th Massachusetts refused it. "They felt that their manhood was at stake. They were regarded as good enough to be killed and wounded, and to work in the trenches with white soldiers, so they said they would wait until they got their just dues."
Another problem of equality in the Army during the Civil War was the failure of the government to allow promotions of black officers within the ranks. Although several black soldiers had been recommended for, and received promotions to Second Lieutenant from the state, the federal Government would not recognize them as such saying that there was "no law by which they can be mustered as commissioned officers." Finally, in June of 1865, the government relented and three black Sergeants in the 55th Massachusetts were officially mustered in as 2nd Lieutenants. Five others would receive promotions, but the unit would be mustered out before they could be mustered in as commissioned officers. Within the white ranks of both units there was dissension over these promotions. Many white officers resigned or threatened to resign not wanting to serve under or alongside black officers. And when the Grand Army of the Republic marched down Pennsylvania Avenue after the war's end, there were no black troops invited to attend.
Not much changed in the military until the units were integrated under Truman. It's a shame it took so long.
James,
GET a LIFE! What you posted here is an outright LIE, not "your opinion".
Grant was a SLAVEHOLDER, slavetrader, slave driver/overseer for others and, to the end of his days, a man who openly stated that had the WBTS been to perserve slavery, that he (Grant) would have fought for the south.
Grant was FORCED in 1866 to free his OWN slaves, after the effective date of the 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution!
being truthful is more important than winning an argument.
yours for dixie, sw
I said "most" abolitionists, not all. Perhaps I should have said "many." Of course Frederick Douglass wasn't your average abolitionist. He'd been a slave, had run away, educated himself and bought his own freedom. Isn't it strange that there isn't a Frederick Douglass commemorative holiday. He was too much of an Uncle Tom for the likes of Jesse Jackson and his gang. Douglass wasn't politically correct then (his 2nd wife was white), and he isn't politically correct today. Were he alive today, I'm sure he wouldn't be demanding reparations or an apology for slavery.
"A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," Alexander Stephens , 1870, Philadelphia: National Publishing Co.:
"When asked by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stepehens at the 1865 Hampton Roads 'peace' conference what would become of the freedmen without property or education, Lincoln sarcastically recited the words to a popular minstrel song, 'root, hog or die.'"
That sir, is history.
my previous post was directed at you
Frederick Douglass was truly a brave man and way ahead of his time. The low level to which Confederate glorifiers will stoop to in order to defend the indefensible is exemplified by The League of the South, which on their website calls Douglass an "anti-Southern demagogue".
Grant never owned slaves.
The biggest problem was the political ramifications inherent in the possibility, however remote, that a black officer would be commanding white troops.
Think of it this way: In the battlefield, the "fog of war" covers everything. Although they attempted to "Segregate" the black from the white troops as much as possible, during pitched battles it became impossible and indeed whites and blacks fought alongside one another. What if during such a melee, units are decimated and lose their officers and, as often happens, units are obliged to "merge" at least temporarily during the fight. What if the only officer(s) available was black? What would be the rules? How could you maintain discipline and order?
I enjoyed the film Soldier's Story, starring the late, great Howard Rollins, very much because of the depiction of how this SAME problem was trying to be solved eighty years later, in the World War II era.
I would love to see a Douglass holiday over one for King. I have respect for Dr. King (up to a point, since in his later years he became pretty much a Marxist), but Douglass was a phenomenal figure.
No one ever said here that Lincoln was a great "champion" of blacks. For most of his public life he believed that slavery had somehow to be ended, but he wasn't sure how it could be done. He openly favored resettlement of former slaves to Africa or Costa Rica. He favored reimbursement of slave owners whose slaves were freed.
But the war threw everything into a cocked hat and, not surprisingly, his decisions were in part motivated by politics.
That, sir, is also REALITY, then as now.
Well, actually, Douglass WAS an "anti-Southern demagogue", in the strict sense.
The "South" was the rich planters, by and large, in the Antebellum period. They had the money, they had the political power. So those who criticized and villifed them and the "system" of political power in the South, were attacking the South itself, in the minds of many.
It is possible to be a "demagogue" and still be right.
Grant never owned slaves.
Wrong!
Grant owned a slave named Willie Jones. His wife owned a half dozen or so slaves.
WRONG ANSWER! the slaves Grant owned are listed by NAME in his records at the national archives in DC!
check your facts before making such an assertion which is not fact based. Furthermore, he refused to free his slaves, when ordered to do do by Stanton (secretary of war) saying: Good help is hard to get.
yours for truth and dixie liberty, sw
GET a LIFE! What you posted here is an outright LIE, not "your opinion".
SIRRAH! Get a life. Better yet, get a book and read it instead of making up what lame inaccurate comments you feel like posting without a thread of research effort.
Grant was a SLAVEHOLDER, slavetrader, slave driver/overseer for others and, to the end of his days, a man who openly stated that had the WBTS been to perserve slavery, that he (Grant) would have fought for the south.
Grant's wife Julia Dent was the daughter of a Southern slaveowner. With his marriage to Julia came a number of slaves. While Grant did effectively have charge of them, and while it is true he himself once bought onefor himself, it is also true that he was notorious among his Southern neighbors for not properly handling them. In particular, he over payed them for not doing enough work, and he did not apply enough physical stress upon them in the manner of a Southern gentleman of the time such that they would work hard enough for him. This was a point of some consternation to his slave owning neighbors.
From owning and working with slaves, Grant formed the personal opinion that they were just as capable of working hard as their white neighbors, and this opinion stayed with him.
As for Julia, Grant held the more common Northern viewpoint that folks who depended on slaves tended to be lazy and not worth a damn without slaves to do most of the hard work of everyday living for them.
Julia was accustomed to slaves, and chose to keep them as long as she could. Grant was overheard to tell his stepfather in 1858 that he would be glad to 'give his wife's slaves their freedom as soon as he could."
The one slave that Grant bought was a buck of 35 years. In 1859, this slave, named William, was worth about 1000 dollars. Grant had the choice of selling him to one of his Southern neighbors for the sum, but instead he manumitted him in the St Louis Circuit Court on March 29, 1859. This was a time in Grant's life when he sorely needed that thousand dollars.
Grant was FORCED in 1866 to free his OWN slaves, after the effective date of the 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution!
The Slaves that came with the marriage to Julia Dent were still owned by Julia's father Colonel Dent. In 1862 when Colonel Dent was facing bankruptcy, Grant told Julia "I would not give anything for you to have any of them as it is not probable that we will ever live in a slave state again but [I] would not like to see them sold under the hammer."
being truthful is more important than winning an argument.
It is very clear you have done neither, Sirrah.
Sirrah
You're an obnoxious bigot.
Re No. 14. The whole purpose of the war was reconstruction. The goal was to make the South an agricultural colony of the North forever. Slavery was an excuse.
The missives calling you a "damned Yankee scalawag/carpetbagger" will follow shortly I'm sure.
bump
You're an obnoxious bigot.
And you not only own a dictionary, but apparently you know how to use it. Congratulations and welcome.
i just went and looked up the names: Willie Jones, Jedaadiah (sic ?) Thomas and Paulus. These 4 black men were Grant's body-servants who went with him to war. NONE were freedmen;all were slaves! Paulus is mentioned in several yankee officer's memoirs by name, as he evidently was an excellent cook and scrounger of luxuries for Grant's table.
the damnyankees will stoop to anything to make their points, including intentional lies; it has ever been so!
yours for dixie, sw
you are SOOOOOOOOO right about that!
Re No. 14. The whole purpose of the war was reconstruction. The goal was to make the South an agricultural colony of the North forever. Slavery was an excuse.
The shoe is on the wrong foot. The whole purpose of secession was to make the South an independent Agricultural Nation forever. When you bet your whole stake against the house and the dice come up wrong, you lose your whole stake.
When your "fine" Grant was a slave overseer, he was well known for his "often and happy use of the whip"; evidently, based on the memoirs of a near-neighbor, he "was particuliarly fond of whipping bare-breasted comely girl-slaves"
he was HARDLY the reluctant slavemaster you depict him as!
yours for truth and dixie liberty, sw
Speaking of contradictions:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.
James Gunn is full of a sense of his own self worth. Unfortunately, not everyone shares his viewpoint of himself. His problem, not ours!
"A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," Alexander Stephens , 1870, Philadelphia: National Publishing Co
A truly great book. The price is getting so high we may yet see it reprinted.
Stephens and Lincoln go back a long long way. In their early careers they were close buddies in the House in the Mexican War era, and this needs to be remembered when you consider the nature of their exchange here.
They say "nice guys finish last', and this could well be said of Stephens. He certainly held his principles much higher than Lincoln or Davis. It would be hard for people to agree on it, but I think it a fair to hold to say that on the whole he was more honorable and moral than most of his contemporaries. He also lasted longer in politics, and did eventually return to the House of Representatives in a seat from Georgia.
Ono of my favorite scenes of all in this whole period is the return of Stephens to the US Senate in 1866. He was not allowed to sit, but what an amazing event in our history!
NOPE, not a carpetbagger OR scalawag!
Scalawags are dis-loyal southern-borns (Nature is UNKIND to turncoats and traitors!); carpetbaggers are damnyankees who come south and stay, while keeping their anti-southern opinions.
Thankfully ravinson came south for law school and returned to the north(good riddence-we have enough anti-southern, anti-confederate bigots down here now.-Would that they would ALL go back north and leave us alone).
ravinson is just a DAMNYANKEE apologist, with a taste for posting quotes of the most shameful of yankee-propagandists.
You should pardon another definition. COPPERHEAD: a person born in the north, who is wise enough to cleave to the rebel cause. Our own Colonel William C. Quantrell, born in NYC,(late of the 4th MO Partisan Rangers) and the gracious lady, Betty Boopof this forum, are two excellent examples of Copperheads; as time passes, i predict more and more copperheads will be converted to the TRUE CAUSE of southern liberty!
So saith the Lord of Hosts: Let my people go!
yours for dixie freedom NOW, sw
Also true! ravinson and James Gunn are quiessential examples of damnyankkes!
i'm TRULY glad neither live in the southland!
yours for the one TRUE CAUSE, sw
was particuliarly fond of whipping bare-breasted comely girl-slaves"
Let me guess, you got that from "Sally the Slut Comix", Vol 8, Edition 12.
There is nothing that clearly defines a person's own sense of low self esteem better than their constantly attacking and demeaning others' intelligence, abilities, understanding, etc. Some on this forum are the quintessential example of that. (i.e. the comic book comment.) That's the only way they can reinforce themselves. You don't argue or discuss things with people like that. They cannnot handle it. They can only demean and attempt to condescend. Their self-imposed 'superiority' is quite revealing. I don't even respond to them any longer. It's a waste of good typing time. I'd much rather engage in debate with someone who's truly intelligent and open minded. True intelligence doesn't assume an air of superiority. In fact, the truly intelligent welcome new concepts, ideas and information and are more than willing to see different views, facets and truths.
Don't you wish!
rather it is from the book, Annals Collected of Illinois and Iowa, by Harry W. Richards, 1907, reprinted 1958, PP 216f.
yours for truth and dixie, sw
Julia was accustomed to slaves, and chose to keep them as long as she could.
So not only was he a drunken slave-owner, he was also pussy-whooped.
Also very TRUE!
in the case of ravinson, unlike some others i could name on this forum, who are both closed-minded and un-intelligent,he is intelligent BUT close-minded to the truth; i keep hoping that he will start reading some books, treatises and articles by southern, or at least neutral, authors such that he gets a balanced view of our continuing war for independence, rather than relying only on the ravings of the most shameless of damnyankee propagandists.
It is obvious to any but the most close-minded of anti-southern bigots that the WBTS was about just one MAIN CAUSE---the LUST for freedom and independence from the damnedyankees, so that we southrons could have a republic of freedom and peace AND that those who remain(ed) in the old union could have the sort of repressive, socialist, statist, self-righteous country they seem to want.
There is plenty of room for 4 independent republics in North America: Canada, Mexico,USA and the new and free Southern Republic. Who knows, there might come a time that we might form something like the common market of europe, but without the restrictions on freedom/liberty that inflict EUCOM.
As i've said before, should the Ssouthern Freedom Drums sound again, the damnyankees will be so busy killing the unborn, taking dope,burning the flag,being feminazis, rioting, committing every conceivable perversion, abusing women and children, committing US troops to conflicts where they have no national interest,banning guns and pitbull dogs,being PC and generally acting like donkeys, that they won't notice we've left, for at least 3-5 years
Maybe we can leave PEACEFULLY this time! yours for dixie freedom NOW, sw
Great post! Booth's letter displays the same contradictions carried on by the Confederate glorifiers today. For example, Booth claims that "The South are not, nor have they been, fighting for the continuance of slavery", yet before that he had found it necessary to state that "This country was formed for the white, not for the black man" and that African slavery was "one of the greatest blessings ... that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation", and later in the letter he trashes abolitionists
They were not fighting for Slavery per se. It just looks like that to you. They were fighting for the inalienable right to lead their own lives as they saw fit, to engage in profitable business practices where and when they could, and to protect their own understanding of morality.
Clearly their understanding is not yours, but neither is yours theirs.
There understanding was based on centuries of experience with their climate and with Africa and it's inhabitants, niether of which was either easy to deal with or part of the Northern domestic (home grown and nurtured) merchant's life experience.
Could somebody please repost this marvelous letter properly HTML formatted?
rather it is from the book, Annals Collected of Illinois and Iowa, by Harry W. Richards, 1907, reprinted 1958, PP 216f.
yours for truth and dixie, sw
Curiously, this book does not seem to exist. Perhaps you would give us it's Library of Congress number.
Perhaps you mis-spelled the title. Perhaps it is "Anals of Illinois and Iowa" Let me know what you find out. Matter of fact, seeing as how you botched your reference in the first place, give us the link to the Library of Congress when you find it there.
So not only was he a drunken slave-owner, he was also pussy-whooped.
And to think he beat the crap out of Lee. Lee must have really been an incompetent idiot. It only makes sense, doesn't it?
James, you are about one more stupid,hatefilled,insulting post away from being shunned! NO brag, just fact. The last person who was shunned on this forum is no longer a poster. Crude,vulgar, abusive & stupid remarks that denigrate people personally have NO PLACE on FR! Freedom of speech is not license-no right is absolute.
meanwhile, i'll look up the ISBN # for you since you can't seem to find it! BUT my PC skills are not up to doing links. SORRY about that!
FreeRepublic.com is a conservative website. And while there are many divergent views and opinions, a common philosophical theme is evident: a smaller, less powerful (de-centralized) federal government; more power and control to state and local governments and the people thereof; less taxes; less federal government voyeurism and imperialism; strict adherence to the plain language and intent of the U.S. Constitution; government free of corruption and waste; a federal government which is not morally and financially bankrupt; and, more individual responsibility.
This is the ideological glue which binds the FreeRepublic family. These, generally, are the guiding principles of present day Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Constitutionalists. And, incidentally, the same are guiding principles of the Confederacy, past and present.
The out-of-control federal government won the first round when the South rose in arms against the tyrannical and dictatorial direction in which the federal government was headed and at which it has now arrived. This is the way to the New World Order. Democrats, atheists, liberals, and socialists seek American domination first and world domination second.
When ravinson and James Gunn, et.al., attack the Confederacy, they attack Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Constitutionalists. They are at the forefront of the federal government/New World Order propaganda battle lines. The issue of the Confederate flag exists not because of slavery or offensiveness to blacks; it is an issue because of is offensiveness to the federal government. It is a symbol of a challenge to a federal government hell bent on an extraconsitutional expansion of scope and authority.
The spirit of the Confederacy was and remains a threat to the Washington, DC ruling elite and the Confederate spirit is held, shared and promoted by Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and Consitutionalists. It is a threat which must be destroyed and discredited by the federal government. Therefore, ravinson and James Gunn, et.al., paint the Confederacy with the broad red-herring brush of slavery and racism. It is a desperate, meaningless, antiquated and transparent mission destined for failure.
Deo Vindice.
Indeed! Thank you.
Dio vindice
Send the link to me. I'll post it for you.
Well, actually, Douglass WAS an "anti-Southern demagogue", in the strict sense.
I disagree strongly. A demagogue appeals to emotion and prejudice; Douglass appealed to reason, and he was anti-slavery, not anti-South. He called slavery "the great sin and shame of America", not just the South.
I have already quit responding to James Gunn, at least regarding the Confederacyy. Not so much to shun him as that it seems pointless to discuss the WBTS with him.
I don't think he is dumb, in fact I think he is intelligent, but I have heard him make truly studid statements that are clearly meant to inflame rather than to inform.
Oddly enough I have heard him make comments on other issues which were well thought out and well stated, and that I agreed with.
The Confederacy and my kin who fought so valiently left me a priceless leagacy of courage and honor. Even in the gloom of defeat by overwhelming odds, they soldiered on to the bitter end.
My Mothers Grandfather lost 2 brothers at Chicamauga and he was wounded. (18th Alabama infantry, Co. A). I resent bitterly anyone who seeks to assassinate their character. If they were evil people I would be the first to say so but they were great people and I claim that greatness for myself and my progenyy.
T