Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
A bit of advice here, and I mean it, friendly advice.
Do the research, find sources that backs up your point, then duck.
If it's 'too much trouble' then it will be too much trouble to take you seriously.
Don't just throw out a claim and expect everyone to go with it.
We here at this board are too old, too mean, and have seen too much to be impressed by opinion only.
I enjoy your posts, when you put a bit of effort in them. You seem to have passion and the ability to back it up on occasion. We need someone here to be the 'loyal opposition' along with our other secessionist kin here. You keep us honest and force us to reconsider basic fact and historical conclusions. That's a good thing and I appreicate it, even if I sometimes forcefully disagree with your conclusions.
But opinion, while it may be entertaining at times, counts for nothing without proof or a source to back it up.
Looking forward to talking to you again,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Since DJ Psychomike says that he has no source to quote from, here's a bit of Marx written in August of 1862 -- the month before Antietam, and before the Emancipation Proclamation:
Thanks for the text from Marx, Tim. I have a couple other articles of his in my files, and regardless of what people think today of him, I find his writings about secession, the cotton South, and the ACW to be anything but "boring rubbish."
Will wait, breathless, for a response (if any) to your post, Tim. Dang! You are awesome.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Thanks for the text from Marx, Tim. I have a couple other articles of his in my files, and regardless of what people think today of him, I find his writings about secession, the cotton South, and the ACW to be anything but "boring rubbish."
Cedarstripper
Marx is not someone high on my list of sources. I disagree largely and strongly with his politics, and he sees the world from a single viewpoint only. I believe he is often wrong in his understanding of Americans as well as others. He has only one approach to things; as an old saying goes "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
But at the same time, his words are often distorted and misquoted. Any man is entitled to the dignity of accuracy in what is said about him. Despite his limited approach and bias, he was still an intelligent and analytical observer who gives us a different perspective on the war, one that can be very useful by broadening our perspective. Also, being written as events occur, it is not the revisionism we can see in works written long after the fighting.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Seeing the world from a single viewpoint. Wrong in his understandings of Americans and others. All you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail. I can agree to that.
Its hard to find many writers of the time who aren't guilty of these same things - who weren't writing to a specific audience - who didn't have a dog in the fight.
The statement about the Emancipation Proclamation freeing no one is just a simple statement of fact that has been covered in links and posts all over this site.
Here are 38.900 websites that state the same thing:
The statement about the Emancipation Proclamation freeing no one is just a simple statement of fact that has been covered in links and posts all over this site.
Here are 38.900 websites that state the same thing:
Google is an amazing search engine. I recommend it.
So Lincoln never abandoned colonization. He never had a plan in place for the South or slavery after the war.
But I'm supposed to believe he did really have a plan, even though no one saw it.
Rubbish.
Sorry, research like this is what should best be called "Rubbish". For example, one of the first sites returned by your Google search actually says "Thus the claims that it "freed no one" are utterly untrue." Is that what you meant?
It was clear at the time that the meaning of the 1st and 2nd Emancipation Proclamations was to free the slaves of those in rebellion against the government. Naturally, those people tended to be in areas where Federal law enforcement was, shall we say, ineffectual. Enforcement of the law would require military victories yet to come and the establishment of Federal control and law in the rebellious areas. That is the situation on January 1st, 1863 when the 2nd Proclamation goes into effect.
What is your problem with that? Are you trying to claim that the period from January 1st 1863 to the end of the war in 1865 didn't happen? Did you miss the hordes of slaves being freed in the wake of the movement of Federal armies, or the 179,000 black USCT and their fellows in the US Navy fighting against the Confederacy? This entire argument is empty and meaningless, as anyone who bothers to reflect upon events immediately knows.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The statement about the Emancipation Proclamation freeing no one is just a simple statement of fact that has been covered in links and posts all over this site.
Besides your "statement of fact" being untrue, what I object to is that you wrote it in such a way to imply that it was Marx's statement, and that kind of deception is not appreciated. Also, if you personally loathe Lincoln and all things Union, fine. But if you find it necessary to add some sort of perjorative (like Dishonest Abe) when you mention them, it only pollutes the post and cheapens your argument.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper : 04-15-2008 at 08:16 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
