cash
Brev. Brig. Gen'l
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Right here.
If we are discussing Lincoln, saintly?
We're not really discussing Lincoln, but even if we were I probably wouldn't be using that word.
If we are discussing Lincoln, saintly?
^^^ This. Well said Anderson. I tried to articulate this same point on another thread. These same people try to put the causes of the war inside a neat little box so even millennials can understand that the war was only about slavery according to them. It is ridiculous and a vast oversimplification of one of the most complex issues in American history. But if it makes ya'll feel better then go right ahead and keep saying it over and over again. But remember, just because you keep saying it repeatedly doesn't make you right...The staunch Union defenders on these boards hammer away constantly at "slavery, slavery and nothing but slavery", and will invariably quote some Confederate talking about slavery or the declaration of causes as if that's all they ever said and assume that ends all discussion, while conveniently ignoring everything else they ever said. And did you yourself not just bring up the Cornerstone speech in relation to Alexander Stephens? That's the first place you went when you saw his name. It illustrates my point.
If you are going to commemorate something, make sure it's for an honorable undertaking, fighting at keeping a whole race enslaved is not it!Obvious not, the craven thing to do would have been to submit to Northern domination. But our Confederate heroes didn't bend the knee gracefully, they dared take the chance for independence and self-rule. That is the reason the one of us that still care have Confederate Flag Days, Confederate Memorial Days, and Confederate History Month.
It would be too time consuming to lecture someone who knows little or nothing about ante-bellum U S history at this venue. And then again, you would never be satisfied with a pro-Southern point of view – it would only lead to repeating myself over and over again. Instead let me recommend someone in the vein of Allan Nevins and his Ordeal of the Union series. Nevins writes with a pro-Northern slant so that should suit you, but he doesn't chunter on with the anti-South rubbish of the post-1960 revisionists like James McPherson and comrades.
It did poorly at seceding, couldn't raise any long term support, and failed miserably in the end.The ability to secede.
If you like we can continue this debate on one of the numerous preexisting threads about the above subject.
Interesting that no one can define what freedom Confederate troops fought for and lost.
Leftyhunter
We can say the Secessionist seceded in what they saw as their political best interest; protection of the financial basis for their society, slavery, plus a hosts of other more or less related antagonisms against the Yankees.
^^^ This. Well said Anderson. I tried to articulate this same point on another thread. These same people try to put the causes of the war inside a neat little box so even millennials can understand that the war was only about slavery according to them. It is ridiculous and a vast oversimplification of one of the most complex issues in American history. But if it makes ya'll feel better then go right ahead and keep saying it over and over again. But remember, just because you keep saying it repeatedly doesn't make you right...
That, of course, is a matter of opinion even ardent Unionists of the day would likely disagree with.and failed miserably in the end.
Kevin Dally
Booklady, your statement leads me to wonder if you have not studied the SOCIAL aspect of what slavery meant to a lot of southerners...A park ranger (from New York, by the way) at the Vicksburg National Military Park once made a pretty convincing case that the war was about money. People do not fight to the death for political ideals or to free other people, he said. They fight their pocketbook. As a lifelong idealistic Yankee, I thought that a pretty interesting observation -- and he could back it up with hours and hours of examples and details, as he'd given 30+ years of his life to studying and explaining the war.
Booklady, your statement leads me to wonder if you have not studied the SOCIAL aspect of what slavery meant to a lot of southerners...
Kevin Dally
We really don't know what Lincoln would have done in the above regard because the secessionists were already violently revolting. We do know that early in the war Southern slave owners could retrieve their slaves behind Union lines.Well, Lincoln's, and the Republican's policy was to attempt to keep slaveholders from taking their property (slaves) in to the Federal Territories (Extension of slavery), which the Supreme Court IIRC had ruled barring slaveholders from taking their property (slaves) into the Territories as unconstitutional.
Had Lincoln been able to over turn the SCOTUS decision and blocked the slaveholder from taking their property (slaves) into the Territories, while allowing other Americans to take their property (Horses, cows, wagons, mules, guns, RV's,......lol...lol......Okay maybe not RV's), they (Confederates/Southerners/slaveholders) would have been denied their constitutional right.............
It would have been a tough row to hoe for Lincoln to get that done however...............But who knows.
Respectfully,
William
View attachment 130686
I will admit, I'd be interested in what all that Ranger had to say. I'd say you have really got yourself hooked on the subject!Thank you for your reply and all that is in it. I am only just beginning to study, which accounts for why I was in Vicksburg talking to the park ranger and why I am here now. There are currently four books about Gettysburg on my coffee table.
12 quotes.Booklady, your statement leads me to wonder if you have not studied the SOCIAL aspect of what slavery meant to a lot of southerners...
Alabama soldier........
Kevin Dally
12 quotes.
How many Confederate soldiers were there? About a million?
Wake me up when you have at least 500,000 quotes.
The staunch Union defenders on these boards hammer away constantly at "slavery, slavery and nothing but slavery"...
How many quotes do YOU have of confederate soldiers saying it wasn't slavery? I want quotes from 1861-65, not AFTER!I was thinking the same thing. That's some pretty broad generalization to take a dozen quotes and apply them to an entire segment of society.
It would be too time consuming to lecture someone who knows little or nothing about ante-bellum U S history at this venue. And then again, you would never be satisfied with a pro-Southern point of view – it would only lead to repeating myself over and over again. Instead let me recommend someone in the vein of Allan Nevins and his Ordeal of the Union series. Nevins writes with a pro-Northern slant so that should suit you, but he doesn't chunter on with the anti-South rubbish of the post-1960 revisionists like James McPherson and comrades.
The ability to secede.
Especially, at times, bypassing the constitution to do so.