Honest Abe - Honest McClellan

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

The "benign" North worked children as much as 16 hours a day/6 days a week.
Nice guys to let'em have that day off...

You know Battalion it is fascinating to see how often you purposefully ignore historical reality. It is almost as fascinating to see how often you have creativlty edited hitorical documents out of their context to bolster your agenda. US "Wage Slave," child workers etc... compared to the Southern Slave. You know full well slave children had at best only a 16 hour day to look forward maybe only 6 days a week. Slave children were worked as soon as they could walk alongside their parents (providing they had not been sold away from them). And they were worked until they were dead... and after death they were buried w/out even a marker to remind their benevolant masters of their names.

[27thConn]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Andy wrote: "There was no purposeful extermination of the Southern people."

Sam Watkins or one of the boys looking down the barrel of a Sharp's carbine would probably have argued that point. No, my friend, as you are well aware, this was civil war. Not a pretty sight.

Are you saying that the war itself was a purposeful effort to exterminate the Southern people or are you just saying thats what the Southern people of the time thought?

Andy

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

If you ever travel to Richmond and catch a glimpse of this particular piece of government propaganda, think of it as a fitting tribute to a corrupt and brutal tyrant who micromanaged the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in and around the very city that now is forced to
honor him with a life-size bronze statue. All to "promote healing," of course.

OK, in the spirit of compromise, let's take down the statute of Lincoln and bronze the Virginia Declaration of Secession and put it there in its stead.

[J_Man0507]

As many on this board are fully aware, when you get something written by Thomas DiLorenzo, you take worth a grain of salt. Strike that. You ignore it completely. DiLorenzo is a libertarian economist, if memory serves me, and has no real place in a true history students library. I have read his first book about Lincoln, and several of his articles that I have come across. They are all a load of crock. There was a review of another book (The Da Vinci Code to be exact) that applies to both his works as well. To paraphrase, these books should not be tossed aside lightly. They should be hurled with great force. If you are studying the Civil War, and Lincoln in particular, don't read DiLorenzo unless you are doing a point/counterpoint analysis. They are worthless.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Battalion

The "benign" North worked children as much as 16 hours a day/6 days a week.
Nice guys to let'em have that day off...

It was their parents who demanded the cities and towns and then the state open public schools, not primarily to educate the children, but to save their parents' jobs to the lower wages of child employment. In Massachusetts Horace Mann from 1837-1848 as Secretary of Education founded the Common School for all children allowing them to be educated before many would go on to work in the mills, shops, or fields. Other states followed the Massachusetts Model and state sponsored public education reformed child labor.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by samgrant

Were the statue in question something like Lincoln standing with a sword raised and his foot on the neck of a serpent, I might have some empathy with those who object to the statue.

The actual statue features Lincoln and his young son, Tad, sitting on a bench, with the father's right arm over the shoulder of the son. The words “To Bind Up The Nation’s Wounds” are cut into a granite capstone.

Could there be a statue less objectionable?

See part 1 of http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...olgiu.asp?pg=2

-

I believe the statue of Minnie Pearl (Sarah Ophelia Cannon) seated next to Roy Acuff in the Ryman Auditorium to be less objectionable. Abe never bothered me aside from his poignant face.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by 27thConn

Are you saying that the war itself was a purposeful effort to exterminate the Southern people or are you just saying thats what the Southern people of the time thought?

Andy

I'm saying that notion appears to have been a concensus among those confronted with the reality of an "invading" army. Invading only in the sense that it happened to be southern soil for the most part that received the traffic. I doubt folks looked at the situation collectively as you suggest, but more likely from a highly personalized basis. This reasoning follows the same line as the notion that slavery, tariffs, states' rights or any of those very important sounding reasons the yanks claim the war was fought over were ever considered by the guy in the trenches.

[larry_cockerham]

On Lincoln and statuary for a moment: If there is a man who claims he can stand on the steps of the Lincoln memorial looking old Abe in the kisser without a sense of awe in his heart, I propose that man to be either a liar or a man with a dead soul.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

"invading" army

They were not "invading". Going into a foreign country is 'invading". The Federals were simply putting down a rebellion in their own country.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by samgrant

They were not "invading". Going into a foreign country is 'invading". The Federals were simply putting down a rebellion in their own country.

Sam, your statement is quite correct.

Narrow your focus a bit to the farmer with 200 acres.

When the army (either Federal OR Confederate) crossed the fence stealing his hogs and knocking down his corn, 'borrowing' a horse or two, they were perceived by the farmer to be invading. That's when many a southern soldier got ****ed and entered the war on one side or the other. (That 'starred' word begins with a p.)