Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The point is, Lincoln acted as a tyrant -- in Maryland particularly. The Maryland State Anthem reflects that. I chuckle to myself every time I think that it has survived even in this day of politically correct James McPherson (spit!! - thanks Tommy!) style CW revisionism. Whether he arrested 38,000 or 1, usurpatious tyranny is what it is.
Is anyone actually willing to defend that tyranny?
Ahhh! I see he was a tyrant... along the lines of whom? Adolf, Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar? PLease be specific so we who actually think the guy did a decent job as president have some common ground w/ you to contend w/. So was he a Hitler, Napolean, Gengis Khan or Julius Caesar... or maybe a Mao, Pol Pot or Stalin?
38,000 or 1... well which is it? You mentioned earlier, thousands arrested... then came up w/ how many? Four or five, can we please stick w/ supportable facts instead of rabid conjecture.
Is one man enough to start a war over? How about fifty? Be careful how you answer, you may wish to find out how many US Regulars were unlawfully imprisoned by the rebeling states first. Others might ask how many Unionists had their necks stretched or otherwise murdered in East TN, North Alabama, Texas etc... I could use the tactic of just saying there were "thousands" though I think the documentable number was actually only in the dozens. Some might say turnabout is fair play...
Tyranny... impressment, titheing, not paying the men in the field, ordering enemy combatants placed into slavery and their officers executed. That is tyranny and abuse of power. Putting down a Rebellion and upholding ones oath... tyranny? Maybe, but I know who I would have voted for. Lincoln won two elections by winning the popular vote. I don't believe the people who voted for him considered him a tyrant.
When you have done a third of the research of McPherson and even a tenth of the succesful writing I'll give your spit its worth.
Putting on Mod hat and responding to anonymous emailer:
It's amazing really, Hal posted at 1056 by 1300 I received an email note that Hal was starting a flame war. While I do not see his post as such I will pass on the nod to please watch how anyone responds to "Is anyone actually willing to defend that tyranny?" and then comparing his thread to Dick Durbins comparing US interrogators to Nazis... Hal is no Dick Durbin and I am rather certain his intention was not to denigrate the US.
Takes mod hat off: I need a beer.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
If debating you over the actions taken by Lincoln, the War Department, etc., and the actions taken to put down an entirely illegal rebellion (in the State of Maryland or elsewhere) is defending tyranny, look in the back of the class and you will see that I have my willing hand raised.
So Hal, 1 or 38,000 arrested arbitrarally, and Lincoln is still just a tyrant then? Then we must, by that definition include the reverse side of the coin, Jefferson Davis and his order of the arrest of civilians, mustn't we? Or does Davis have some mystical reason for not being painted with the same, broad brush?
And again, how wonderful to discount prize-winning historical research and dismiss it as 'pc' and unworthy of consideration. Actual records from the period discounted and dismissed, but pretty hard to ignore.
Until next time, Hal.
Always Willing,
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
From the book, Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Far ber:
"Finally, there was Lincoln's great judicial adversary, Chief Justice Taney. Although not a bad man by any means, Taney was arrogant and rigid. His Merryman opinion was deliberately written so as to weaken the president as much as possible. It was not just that he ruled against Lincoln on the habeas issue, but he went out of his way to undermine any claim of emergency power of any kind. Taney even seemed oblivious to the existence of the emergency itself, as if the unrest in Maryland were merely a routine law enforcement problem. He failed to realize the relevance of his own experiences with Andrew Jackson or of his own opinion in Luther v. Borden, both of which should have given him a clearer view of presidential authority. To top it all off, he failed to give the government a genuine opportunity to be heard, mocked Lincoln for failing to observe his oath of office, and widely publicized his opinion in order to undermine the administration. A judge with a little less self-righteousness and a little more humility might still have ruled against Lincoln, but he would not hav overreached so badly. It was much the same arrogance that led Taney to think he could settle the slavery issue single-handedly with his Dred Scott opinion."
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
If debating you over the actions taken by Lincoln, the War Department, etc., and the actions taken to put down an entirely illegal rebellion (in the State of Maryland or elsewhere) is defending tyranny, look in the back of the class and you will see that I have my willing hand raised.
Ah, always the willing one.
At least you're consistent in your support of the usurpation of Constitutional powers, or whatever blatant unconstitutional act the Great Emancipator committed. Your staunch loyalty is admirable, though misplaced I fear.
Quote:
So Hal, 1 or 38,000 arrested arbitrarally, and Lincoln is still just a tyrant then? Then we must, by that definition include the reverse side of the coin, Jefferson Davis and his order of the arrest of civilians, mustn't we? Or does Davis have some mystical reason for not being painted with the same, broad brush?
Your point is a good one. One must take into account the circumstances, scope and magnitude when judging tyranny.
Should we narrow it down some to a more manageabe endeavor? Like say, unconstitutional arrests of newspaper editors and governmental representatives? Or perhaps the suspension of habeas corpus with no congressional approval?
Quote:
And again, how wonderful to discount prize-winning historical research and dismiss it as 'pc' and unworthy of consideration.
Always Willing,
Unionblue
The prizes awarded by whom?
McPherson is a brilliant author and I have paid good money for some of his books. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when his bias colored the stated findings of his research on why men fought, but can only stomach so much.
"McPherson is a brilliant author and I have paid good money for some of his books. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when his bias colored the stated findings of his research on why men fought, but can only stomach so much."
I'm missing something. Would you please specify "when his bias colored the stated findings?" If you will point out where, I will be pleased to reread McPherson to find credence to your charge. Really. If McP is biased, I'd like to see it through your eyes and, perhaps, make the same judgement. I'm open to looking further into your allegation.
Nice to see you dodging and dancing Hal.... so who should we compare the vile tyrant Lincoln to? If you can't answer that honestly perhaps you should use a different adjective to describe the man.
Unsubstantiated inuendo about an author you disagree w/? Similar to unsupported inuendo about "thousands" imprisoned in Maryland? Really Hal, you're doing a splendid job of weakening the Lost Cause; thanks.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
At least you're consistent in your support of the usurpation of Constitutional powers, or whatever blatant unconstitutional act the Great Emancipator committed. Your staunch loyalty is admirable, though misplaced I fear.
It is so nice to see you calm and reasonable instead of resorting to just plain name-calling or baseless rhetoric. Thank you for the compliment.
Your point is a good one. One must take into account the circumstances, scope and magnitude when judging tyranny.
Would that include a newly elected President faced with a massive rebellion, a capitol surrounded, etc?
Should we narrow it down some to a more manageabe endeavor? Like say, unconstitutional arrests of newspaper editors and governmental representatives? Or perhaps the suspension of habeas corpus with no congressional approval?
How about we take care of the original question I asked a few posts back before we going running off to new fields to plow? Are you willing to accept the fact the number of civilian arrests in Maryland were not as many as you had 'heard?' Do you accept the documentation I have presented as to the actual figures of civilians arrested during the times I have shown? Then I will be more than happy to move on to other 'fields' as it were.
The prizes awarded by whom?
I have not used McPherson in presenting my facts and figures concerning civilian arrests in Maryland. I did say in my posts I was using a book by Mark E. Neely Jr, who won the Pulitzer Prize in History for his book, The Fate of Liberty. I have also presented information from the book, Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Far ber, the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Henry J. Fletcher Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota.
Sincerely,
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
Would that include a newly elected President faced with a massive rebellion, a capitol surrounded, etc?
That would be a tad enabling don't you think? I mean, if a chief executive that arrested members of a State's legislature to prevent a vote contrary to his liking, and arrested newspaper editors and shut down their papers on the grounds of voicing opinions contrary to the chief executive's, etc., with no authority to do so other than his military might as commander-in-chief -- I mean if those aren't fruits worthy of a tyrant, I think I would have trouble naming one at all.
And Shane, please. "Unsubstantiated inuendo"? Surely you jest!? One only has to look as far as the posts on this thread to understand that even the most resolute of Victors' Spin adherents admit to the readily available proof of the tyrannical usurpation of powers exercised in MD. So what adjective would you have me use? Here's the definitions Merriams-Webster assigns to the word: 1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
I have to say that the definitions match up quite snuggly. Don't you agree? Lincoln acted quite unrestrained by law or constitution here. He usurped the authority of others. He was oppressive.
At this juncture, I'm reminded of Seward's shocking boast, "I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the imprisonment of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?"
"McPherson is a brilliant author and I have paid good money for some of his books. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when his bias colored the stated findings of his research on why men fought, but can only stomach so much."
I'm missing something. Would you please specify "when his bias colored the stated findings?" If you will point out where, I will be pleased to reread McPherson to find credence to your charge. Really. If McP is biased, I'd like to see it through your eyes and, perhaps, make the same judgement. I'm open to looking further into your allegation.
Regards, Ole.
Ole, by way of clarification, I don't believe there is an unbiased WBTS author alive or dead. And McPherson is clearly biased leftward.
His role in the National Parks revisionism is embarrasing. Even in his book For Cause and Comrades, though he admits that it was extremely rare for a soldier to say he was fighting for or against slavery, (you'd certainly never know that by looking at Epperson's site, would you Neil?) he can't help but try his best to weasel his pet doctrine into the book. For example, when discussing the Southern letters, the use of "our institutions" means "slavery." But when in Northern letters "our institutions" is used, well, it means what it says -- their various institutions. And then with his foreward to one of the latest printings of Jefferson Davis' memoirs, he guaranteed that I will never buy another of his books.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
