Posted on 04/13/2017 6:58:51 PM PDT by brucedickinson
Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Some appear to suffer from invincible ignorance and some....
I prefer the threads where we stick to analyzing battles and strategies - guilty pleasure I suppose ;’}
I have always found it odd that the neo-Confederates blast Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus but not a peep about Jefferson Davis doing the same thing, several times. I'm not really too critical about either president doing that, BTW. It was a time of war and sometimes extreme measures have to be taken.
If slavery wasn't the prime issue of the war, what was the grievance that so serious that the southern states had to succeed? There seems to be no issue or issues in combination that approach the level of concern about slavery. To say that slavery wasn't the primary cause seems a bit disingenuous.
Which of course has nothing at all to do with whether secession is legitimate, America having been born in secession from the British Empire, or whether London held the moral high ground because they proclaimed emancipation for the slaves.
Not to mention that the author of the Declaration was himself an owner of slaves, which is conveniently ignored by those seeking to use the document as addressing slavery.
Yet they signed up to the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States..."
I think the power to leave could be covered under this provision.
Hard to reserve or cover a power you don't have.
“Other than ruining or killing off an entire generation of good American Christians and splitting a nation over grievances that could have easily been settled diplomatically...”
Seems to me that cuts in more than one direction. The South played a part too.
People who “jump to a conclusion” usually do. Way off base, boy.
Tell that to the Supreme Court...
Heeere she is— baited by the ABC, TIME, Fortune Mag, and... Disney media dynasty- members of the leftists tribe, who luuuuuv Ivanka (rabbi catching her going non-kosher before Seder... get it?) their hope for securing a future for the “insiders”—who will just as easily turn on them, whenever they want— so typical behaviour. This is HOW they work, the fake mainstream. This legislator is quite popular in NC— they are wasting their time on him, but there is a reason.. as many here in “out of context” FReeperland, and our sleeper trolls of the uni-party never trumpers rise in aiding to the confusion. You knew Breitbart was proudly Jewish right, Lefties? G-dmnd commie biotch of the former “press”.
Enjoy: https://twitter.com/aabramson
And, for reference: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/14/stephen-k-bannon-friend-jewish-people-defender-israel/
Enjoy this leftist’s twitter feed.
Am a yankee and I agree. But prepare for an onslaught of arrogant insults and smears, like their hero, AL.
Agreed that Lincoln’s views can’t be judged by today’s light. In that same speech (that I linked to) Lincoln made some really funny comments on how he would not change the law which forbid inter-racial marriage, (as without that law, it sounded like Douglass and his friends would be tempted to marry blacks). Lincoln also said that these laws were best done by the states, and suggested that Douglass run for state office instead so he could fight the changes on that level.
Lincoln:
“I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness—and that is the case of Judge Douglas’s old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]
I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature—not in the Congress of the United States—and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.]”
That has to be the most moronic post of the week.
Dude, there were people around in the 1860s who really hated African-Americans.
They wouldn't have received Black delegations into their home as Lincoln did to the White House.
Heck. There were people like that even in the 1960s.
But the stupidity doesn't stop there:
Hitler was worse because of the death camps.
Yeah, I guess this week you have to stick that in.
But Lincoln bombed the black’s towns and homesites.
And had he lived, blacks would have been loaded on to boxcars, and shipped to Africa.
Right, because 19th century America had airplanes and you could get to Africa by railroads.
I really hope you're satirizing neoconfederates and don't really believe your BS.
Not if the Confederacy was going to start shooting. But if they hadn't there wasn't any willingness to start a war in the North. Smarter secessionists just might have been able to get their independence if they hadn't been so impatient and bloodthirsty.
In other words, if you were a forward thinker, you could foresee what was to USA become: a global empire.
If you were very astute, like Tocqueville, you could predict that. Some Northerners had visions like that, often tied to religious prophecies. But how seriously did anybody take such predictions?
In the South, there were some who did believe that they could create a slaveholding empire. The did a lot of talking and planning, while Northerners were still trying to get the continent settled.
Read about the "filibusters" of the 1850s who were trying to conquer Central America or the Knights of the Golden Circle and their visions of a slaveholding empire ringing the Caribbean.
The Union had the power, and they used. The result is not only history, but the fantastically wealthy families that resulting from industrial consolidation.
If the war had gone differently, you'd be talking about fantastically wealthy planter families who benefited from the conflict.
History records the same tale over and over again: believers get hosed, realists take home the pot.
There were idealists and realists on both sides. Confederate leaders weren't pie-in-the-sky believers. They were "crackpot realists" -- they were aiming at the same material gains as other opportunists but they didn't have the resources to achieve their goals and were too besotted to realize it.
What South? The South of 50 years ago or 150 years ago isn't the South of today. And the South of 50 or 150 years from now will be different from today's South.
... with the attitude of somehow “knowing better” and a holier than thou self aggrandizing ivy league arrogance.
Northern Republicans aren't so ivy league as they once were. Plenty of Southern Republicans are. Splits in the GOP are as much ideological or religious or class-based as regional.
Mr. Trump would not have won the South, were it not for Southerners of the legacy of Jesse Helms and yes, Richard Russell. (not, however LBJ/CLinton).
Except Johnson and Russell were great friends. Recognize that LBJ was as much a part of the legacy of the Democratic South as the segregationists who opposed him. Come to think of it, he might not be the worst of the bunch.
I agree with that.
I don’t realistically believe war could have been avoided either way. I just wish that that generation didn’t lose such a good chunk of good men that could have given our nation even more good men - or greater men. Both sides.
Tragic IMHO.
Nice to see a few actual facts presented.
I am certain, sir, that you well deserve the same praise you give Mr. Lincoln.
I am not here to defend or attack Lincoln, Pittman, or that war...I am posting to say whatever else he may or may not have been, Lincoln was NOT a defender of the Constitution....http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30277
“In the Confederate States - 316,519. In the two border south states that the Confederacy considered part of them - 62,965.In the rest of the U.S. - 14,491”
So, the correct answer is 316,000 and change within the Confederacy, and 77,000 and change without. Already distorting the facts.
“A tiny percentage of the total.”
In other words, you don’t know, and you’re not thinking your way through to the implications of the fact that there were any black slavers.
“Conscription.”
No, the New York draft riot was started by a rumor that Lincoln was pursuing the war to free the slaves rather than to keep the Union together.
“He didn’t. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862 and made it effective January 1, 1863.”
If I ever make an argument like that, just shoot me.
“Because constitutionally Lincoln could not end slavery.”
Haw. Constitutionally he couldn’t suspend habeas corpus or wage war on the southern states, either, but he didn’t let that stop him. He was quite willing to allow the institution of slavery to stand in return for a cessation in hostilities. It was only when he saw that the slavery issue was not enough to satisfy the South, and that the Brits were not going to come in on the side of the South, that he let himself be pressured into the Emancipation Proclamation.
This tells us that slavery was not the main issue for the South.
“Would you pay 600,000 lives in a war to defend your right to slavery?”
No, and neither would the South. That is one very clear indicator that the war was not about slavery, but rather about the right to self-government.
“And who placed the ten year timestamp on the institution?”
It’s an approximation based on analysis of the progress of the industrial revolution, the condition of the soil, and many other factors. It is tendentious in the extreme to insist that slavery would have continued in the US while historical events were rendering it untenable throughout the western hemisphere.
“None, since none of the other slave holding countries launched a war to defend it.”
Sorry, you’re not entitled to your own facts. The South sought to secede, as they had every moral and legal right to do. Lincoln launched the war to deny them the exercise of their right to self-government. The point is that the other countries were able to pull it off without a war, and the US would have as well,
“Nobody is suggesting the U.S. invented slavery.”
People act like it. They act like the 89 years of black slavery in the United States were uniquely evil in human history, as though the Jews weren’t marched off to slavery in Egypt (and other places), as though the word “slav” didn’t mean “slave,” as though slavery hadn’t been practiced throughout the western hemisphere, as though the first sale of slaves in North America had not been held in Manhattan, as though black Africans didn’t practice slavery, as though American Indians didn’t practice slavery, as though a human being had no moral duty to see things within their proper context.
Slavery in America was just exactly as bad as it was—and no worse. Worse things have happened. To name two, the Holocaust and Stalin’s murder of the Ukrainians. Hell, Russian serfs were treated every bit as bad as American slaves, if not worse. (Hint: it was worse.)
The war was about northern legislators taxing the south to pay for the teeming masses in the large cities. Stealing, in other words. The north had no right to help themselves to the wealth of the South, and the South decided to end that abuse by seceding. Lincoln, and pretty much the entire north said, “No, we’re stealing your property, and if you don’t like it, we’ll kill you.”
I am sick unto death of every America-hating black and leftard going on as though American slavery was the worst thing that ever happened, and worse, as though it hadn’t ended 152 years ago.
Well worth remembering.
Our pro-Confederates are first & foremost Democrats, not Conservatives, much less Republicans.
Sure, other Democrats ran them off, but they still think, talk & act like Democrats.
Do you know the first rule of being a Democrat, even before Big Government or identity politics?
The first rule of being a Democrat is: Narrative is everything, facts are unimportant unless they support the Narrative.
It's what Lost Causer mythology is all about, fact-free Narrative.
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.