Another Perspective
Black History Month and Lincoln
Time for a fresh look at the Great Emancipator.
Last month we celebrated Black History Month. Also, February 12 marked the end of the year-long celebration of the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. It is not by coincidence that Lincoln’s Birthday falls within Black History Month.
Since President Ford’s proclamation in1976, every February has been proclaimed Black History Month. The Month evolved from Black History Week that had been first promoted in 1926 by the eminent scholar, Dr. Carter G. Woodson (Berea College, 1903; Harvard Ph.D., 1912), founder in 1915 of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (now known as the Association for the Study of African American Life and History) and in 1916 of the Journal of Negro History. Dr. Woodson chose the second week of February to build on two days already celebrated by the African-American community: Lincoln’s birthday on February 12 and Frederick Douglass’s on February 14. (Douglass chose February 14 as his birthday because his mother called him her “little valentine.”)
Many people have heard or read some things about Lincoln that have tarnished his image in their eyes. Maybe you, too, have heard or read that he was not an Abolitionist; that he fought the war to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves; that his Emancipation Proclamation was of very limited value since it applied only to slaves behind Union lines; that he entertained the idea of colonizing Africa with freed slaves; and that he was racist on the issue of social equality between the races. May I encourage you to take a fresh look? We may avail ourselves of a pair of volumes exploring the moral decision-making of Lincoln by University of Virginia Professor William Lee Miller: his 2002 Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography (2002), from his youth to his First Inaugural Address, and his 2008 President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman. I will proceed chronologically and briefly.
March 3, 1837 — As a state legislator, Lincoln made his first antislavery speech.
1849 — During his sole term in Congress, Lincoln sponsored a bill, with a fellow congressman, to emancipate slaves in the District of Columbia, the one jurisdiction in which Congress could constitutionally do so.
Early 1854 — Lincoln read in the papers of a bill sponsored by Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas that became the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Allowing slavery to expand beyond its historical borders stirred Lincoln to the depth of his being. He later said that it “aroused” him. Lincoln utilized all the library resources available to him in Springfield, Illinois, to study the congressional debates and the history of slavery in the United States since 1776. This was not an academic exercise. He, a private citizen, prepared to do battle against Douglas, the best-known Democrat in the country. Lincoln dismissed the fact that Douglas, in achieving Senate passage of the bill on March 4 by 37-14, had beaten down the arguments of the likes of Senators Seward, Chase and Sumner.
October 1854 — Douglas had no interest in giving Lincoln any notoriety by debating him. Instead, Lincoln trailed Douglas. When Douglas was scheduled to speak, Lincoln would be in the audience, taking notes. After Douglas finished, Lincoln would announce that he would give his own speech, either later that day or the next. And so it was — in his now famous speeches in Springfield on October 4 and Peoria on October 10, 1854. Sometimes he spoke without Douglas present: as in Urbana on October 24 and Chicago on October 27. Lincoln focused exclusively on the issue of slavery in new states, ignoring the wedge issues of the day: infrastructure (then called “internal improvements”), immigration (then called nativism), or drugs (temperance).
February to June 1856 — In February, at the same time that the Republican Party was organizing on a national level in meetings in Pittsburgh, Lincoln was the only person not a newspaper editor to an organizational meeting of the Republican Party of Illinois in Decatur. In May, he attended the first state convention in Bloomington. In June, Lincoln’s name was placed in nomination for vice president at the first national Republican Convention in Philadelphia. The core plank was the prohibition of slavery in the territories.
July to October 1858 — When Lincoln was the Republican nominee for the Senate in 1858, he continued to engage in informal debates with Douglas: Chicago on July 10, and Bloomington and Springfield on July 17. Then began the formal Lincoln-Douglas Debates from August through October of 1858 in seven Illinois towns.
1859 — Lincoln spoke on behalf of the Republican Party in Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
February 27, 1860 — Lincoln delivered his address to a full hall at Cooper Union in New York City. The address was printed in its entirety in a number of newspapers and distributed as a pamphlet. He delivered similar addresses throughout New England.
In 175 speeches in six years, Lincoln argued from first principles — the first principles of morality and the first principles of the founding of the United States. He argued that slavery was morally wrong (“If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”), slavery dehumanized (a word he used) blacks, and the Declaration of Independence states the moral foundation of the country (“all men are created equal”). Lincoln argued that the Founders had only tolerated slavery: they had prohibited slavery in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (the law governing what are now Midwest states); they had prohibited the export of slaves in 1794, the import of slaves into Mississippi Territory in 1798, the trading of slaves by Americans between foreign countries in 1800, and the import of slaves into the U.S. on the first day in 1808 allowed by the Constitution.
November 1860 to February 1861 — With states seceding one after another, before he had even been inaugurated, a number of people sought to soften the impact of Republican Lincoln’s presidency. Lincoln, however, was unyielding; there would be no geographical expansion of slavery on his watch. He would not compromise on the core issue of the Republican Party.
February 21, 1862 — Lincoln allowed Nathaniel Gordon, a captain of a slaver, to be hanged. He was the first in U.S. history.
March 6, 1862 — In his annual message to Congress, Lincoln was the first president to propose emancipation.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (210) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by James M. Thunder
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/26/black-history-month-and-lincol
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
gsr| 3.26.10 @ 6:52AM
You obviously think BHM has some importance? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but, t's a joke. It's nothing but ultra-pc, diversity, cult of multiculturalism run amok.
It's a month full of The History Channel, endlessly running "stories" of slavery, Jim Crow, etc., ad infinitum.
Every country, every culture, every human being has racism embedded in their DNA. Will never change. Beyond common sense attempts to limit it, constantly repeating and feeling guily over the way the nation was hundred of years ago is foolhardy.
Besides, the USA was founded by Caucasians, really intended for Caucasians. That's the ugly truth. Intended for white, Judeo-Christian culture, other cultures - Arab/Moooslim, Latino/Mexican Indian, Chinese, Hindu/Indian, etc. are not suited for this type of system. Correction, they are suited today, with our big, bigger, biggest Nanny Government, 24/7 Obamamessiah, making all the decisions in our lives. That's the point of endless, mass immigration - to create a new electorate of government dependent submissives.
The USA is so over.
Mike| 3.26.10 @ 9:29AM
Exactly right, and thank you for having the guts to say this. Why is the American Spectator, of all places, giving attention and credibility to a racist month that is used to those people who weren't a part of our country to begin with?
Mike| 3.26.10 @ 9:30AM
used to glorify*
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:58AM
Why, Mike? blame the Jewish media, Mike; they want to promote miscegenal assignation and the fluoridation of the essence of our precious bodily fluids-- POE (Purity Of Essence).
The Illuminati is on it too! And it also involves Popery and the Jesuits, the Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, Fala, all the goldfish at the pond in Warm Springs, Ga, David Ferrie's gay friends, Marina Oswald, mkULTRA, Juanita Broadderick, Socks the cat...
Eric Cartman| 3.27.10 @ 1:25PM
And now, Great Moments in Black History:
On the warm spring day of June 9th, 1976, Detroit gas station attendant, Tyrone Jefferson, was sitting outside the door of a downtown Sunoco station sunning himself and listening to Cool and the Gang when Jerry Rubin, a Southfield, MI accountant pulled in and asked Tyrone "Can you fill it up with regular, please?" Tyrone, not wanting to disturb his listening and relaxation responded, "Get yo own damn gas, foo!" And thus, the self serve gas station was invented.
Stay tuned for more Great Moments in Black History.
lunde| 3.29.10 @ 6:16AM
An Ethical Biography (2002), from his youth to his First Inaugural Address, and his 2008 President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman.
http://www.linkdelight.com
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:19AM
I like the piece, and you detractors deserve BHM to diss your bad cause, just as the Confederacy deserved to be beaten for the ante Bellum South attempting to spread its power into the Western territories. God punished the South for their ways. In democracy, everyone gets what they DESERVE; the mills grind slowly, but they grind.
Yes, the North was no better than the South, but the South lied when they said they were Christians (though in ancient times it was permissible, unavoidable given the conditions existing thousands of years ago) Christians are not supposed hold slaves in modern times, and the British (the best people in the world) outlawed slavery as being piracy. You crypto-white supremacists can't see that justice exists-- however minuscule it is. What, you think caucasians don't go to the bathroom? what, a white woman doesn't menstruate? I've seen all the white trash down South, and white trash existed in New England as far back as 1620. Who knows, perhaps Virginia Dare's family relatives in Virginia were white trash, bringing the introduction of white trash in America back to 1587.
Since you hide your hate, you deserve BHM even more, may BHM sear into your minds. You know who is slightly "superior"?: Asians, they are a little "above" whites.
Relax, you got what you deserved in BHM, no sense in fighting it; Gerald Ford gave you what you deserved in 1976-- how fitting for the bicentennial of America.
Achilles Toejam| 3.28.10 @ 5:50PM
Alan Brooks, "you crypto- white supremacists?" Black, white, yellow, red or green name-calling does your argument a disservice. We can cut to the chase here by saying it has nothing to do with DNA, we are all fallen sinful people capable of the most heinous of injustices to our fellow man else we would have no need for salvation through our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.
What disturbs me is the constant drum beating of victimhood by a people in our modern culture wrongfully attempt to bestow virtue on the people claiming it to the point where it has become a tactic in the culture war whereby claims on the resources of others are demanded for said victims as they become a political constituency of self-serving power hungry bureaucrats that pander for their vote promising redistributive wealth from the people who have earned it to the people who have not this is not charity it's known as theft, the sad part is they could be prosperous in their own right but they have bought the lie that they can't do it on their own without a political master utilizing what is sometimes referred to as a poverty pimp and inevitably human nature kicks in and they become comfortable and even feel entitled to cashing the check it's just human nature only the strongest of character in the great scheme of freedom can resist and turn down and reject the entitlement/bribe those that cannot have only exchanged one type of chains on their bodies for another type of chains of dependency on their minds.
"There is none more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free!" -- Jonathan W. von Goth
The stigma of receiving welfare has been totally obliterated as multiple generations have accepted the welfare state as something good and nothing to be ashamed of but when counting the cost and effect i.e. the continued deterioration and eventual destruction of "the family" be it white or black as the natural consequence of this Faustian relationship. Now with the Obama administration we have taken a quantum leap into socialism and dependency on government this time the target is the whole middle class as the politicians in Washington have converted their own role as servants of the people with the consent of the governed into sovereigns over the people.
Getting back to the central point of the issue of slavery which has been with us for thousands of years and is currently alive and well today in many countries and manifests itself in various forms, personally I foresee the avarice and rancor to increase as the Marxist social justice wealth redistribution scheme advances some people believe we are living in the last days, I don't know but if it is we can skip to the back of the book and know how it turns out.
"From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courag,.
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back into bondage."
Alexander Tyler
Alan Brooks| 3.28.10 @ 12:14AM
"Every country, every culture, every human being has racism embedded in their DNA."
You hit on the main point, but the point justifies only white separatism at the individual level, not the 1961- '65 collectivist Confederate cause in any way. The north did violently coerce its wage slavery on the south & Western territories, but Southern slavery was no better. On libertarian (not that I trust libertarians) the south wanted to use both statism AND bounty hunters to return fugitive slaves.
So if the North was evil, such doesn't make the south any better.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.10 @ 12:19AM
that ought to read: on libertarian terms the critique is:
the South wanted to use both statism AND bounty hunters to return fugitive slaves. So if the North was evil, such doesn't make the South any better. They both DID get their just desserts.
It hurts, Bad.
As Lincoln privately said to a friend, no one wants to used for God's purposes when His purposes conflict with their own.
Pingback| 3.26.10 @ 7:40AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Black History Month and Lincoln [spe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
BT| 3.26.10 @ 8:37AM
Look up the speeches Lincoln gave during his run for office and you will discover a different view. He disliked slavery mainly because he felt that if blacks could be enslaved so could whites. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that he strongly believed that blacks could not coexist beside the white population. That no black man should ever hold public office. In essence, Lincoln believed the black race was far inferior to the white race.
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:47AM
"[snip] In essence, Lincoln believed the black race was far inferior to the white race."
But 149 years ago was a very different time, you can't judge 1861-'65 by today's standards.
You cannot compare the GOP of today with the 1860's GOP, either.
Too bad, eh? Don't know what I mean?: then think about it.
satty| 3.28.10 @ 12:31PM
Lincoln opposed slavery, as his father, Thomas, opposed slavery. We are our parents!
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.26.10 @ 8:51AM
...I dream of a day when a man is judged on the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin.
AMEN Lord. ...But I don't like Obama's character.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.10 @ 12:04AM
Re as you told Al Adab a couple months ago, take antidepressants and you will be even more optimistic concerning human character than you are already.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 8:53AM
WHY are we reading this column in March and not February? Nevermind.
I haven't read the book to which the author refers and probably will not. The author's review of the book and column is over simplified and naive (as is typical of Lincoln hagiography) while attempting to discredit Lincoln's critics. All Americans have been sold a pretty big bill of goods about Lincoln. In the last decade or so much more realistic assessments of him have finally gained traction. It appears this book and this review is an attempt to resuscitate Abe's justifiably diminishing reputation.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.10 @ 1:50AM
Sure it's hagiography; Washington has his hagiographers; Reagan has his hagiographers--
even saints have hagiographers.
The big point IMO is white separatism is justified, blacks and others often want to be separated from others (you will find that humans are incompatible beings both collectively and individually, when you examine their behavior carefully). Utopian conservatism is finished and we'd better adapt. I don't like it, wish we could invent a time machine and all live in 1983, but tough sh*t for me.
The South's slavery was no better than the North's wage slavery, and the Southern grab for territories negated its morality. Like the Third Reich, the Confederacy was intellectually and sexually embarrassing-- though, it must be hastily added, not nearly to the same degree. I mean, too bad things must change, too bad we can't live in a Utopia that is all things for all the persons we like. Now wouldn't it be nice (as Brian Wilson might sing).
The Confederacy was statist in wanting to use government to protect slavery; and if the Civil War wasn't about slavery, then it wasn't about decency either-- on both sides. Whatever Lincoln's flaws, he was preferable to Jefferson Davis.
And, BTW, who won the Civil War, if not morally than at least militarily? There are good conservative causes, but the Confederacy was a lost cause.
Period.
Bob| 3.28.10 @ 3:09AM
What a load of Pelosi. First off, if you ever took the time to read the Confederate Constitution you would see that the ninth article said that no more slaves could be brought into the Confederacy. That spelled the doom of and the end to slavery.
Secondly, Lincoln actually had slaves work on the white house while he was in office. By the same token Jefferson Davis and his wife, while he was President of The Confederate States of America, adopted a young black boy and had him live with them. But he was separated from them when some kind union soldiers caught the family.
May I also remind you that during all this time slavery was still legal in the United States of America. Even U.S. Grant's wife owned slaves during the war and afterwards too. Actually, when Grant was asked what he thought about the war being fought over slavery he responded that if he thought the war was being fought to free the slaves he would resignhis commission and offer his sword in service to the Confederacy.
Let me now quote to you from a political debate betwee Lincoln and Douglas the exact words of Abraham Lincoln, after which I dare you to claim that he was not a racists.
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races....I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
As for Lincoln being preferable to Jefferson Davis, at least Davis didn't have the army shut down over 300 newspapers, jail their publishers without charges, sometimes upwards of two or more years, all just because they felt the South had the right to secede from the union. (It's interesting to note that the principle of secession was being taught at West Point just before the war broke out.)
As for the cause of the war, let's look at just one simple fact. (Sorry to confuse you with facts, but that's life.) A newspaper man asked Lincoln if he was going to let the south go. Lincoln responded thusly: "Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?"
Perhaps you need to do some more reading. May I suggest the book "The South Was Right" by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy.
Of course, if you are easily confused by facts then I would suggest going nowhere near the book.
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 5:29PM
LOL This is one of the most incoherent, strawman filled, non sequitur laced, and apparently insane rants I have ever read.
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 5:30PM
I was referring to Mr. Brooks comment here, not Bob's.
Red Phillips | 3.26.10 @ 8:59AM
Lincoln DID invade the duly seceded South to "preserve the Union." (A conception of the Union that existed only in his brain.) He said this in his own words. This should be a noncontroversial fact of history. Only Lincoln hagiographers believe otherwise.
TAS is supposed to be a conservative site. Lincoln was not a conservative. He was a radical who invade a sovereign nation. That the South was the conservative side in the WBTS and that the Southern understanding of the nature of the Union was the one consistent with the consensus of the Founders Fathers is clear to all right thinking conservatives. If TAS is truly conservative it should not be publishing Lincoln apologia. It should be tearing down the Lincoln mythology that has been built up over years of getting our history from the victors. We can not restore the constitutional order as originally intended by the Founding Fathers until we get Lincoln and the WBTS right, because it was Lincoln and his bloody invasion that destroyed it forever.
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:27AM
Still, Red, the Confederacy, be it was no worse than the Union, and Lincoln having been no better than that Confederate reptile, Jefferson Davis, GOT WHAT IT DESERVED, and that is what hurts today's (small case 'c') confederates-- no one likes to be punished, even if they are wrong.
Both the North and the South were punished, the casualties were high for the Union; the South was invaded and brought down to earth. There may be only a microscopic justice in the world, but it exists nonetheless.
Becky| 3.26.10 @ 9:13AM
I think Jefferson was not optimistic about blacks and whites living together also. I have a tendency to look more warmly on Lincoln because he didn't own slaves, and although I think of both men as overall melancholic, Lincoln at least evidenced a sense of humor.
How very different is the view of what Lincoln and the previous generation saw looking into the future from what we see looking back. Both views, by the variable of time, cannot help but be distorted, theirs by what they guessed would happen, and ours by what we know happened.
I read a book a long time ago by a historian, (can't remember who or the title), but remember a passage where the author commented that in American Wars, that unless the President took control, wars seem to go poorly. Lincoln was no exception. He went into the office fairly inexperienced in military knowledge and did in fact read and study to become knowledgable enough to say of McClellan that if he wasn't going to use the army, he'd like to borrow them. I view the firing of McClellan as significant as anything else Lincoln did. He did in fact rough up the Constitution. Lee was offered a job with the Union Army, but felt his proper loyalty was with the State.
By the way, March is usually women's history month, and also in my female opinion, a silly waste of time and resources, unless the only women allowed are those without benefit of preferential treatment of the law. Like baseball players who are guilty of steroids, feminist movements, civil rights movements, make achievements of formal victim groups take on the tinge of an asterik in the books.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.10 @ 1:58AM
"He was a radical who invade a sovereign nation."
Red, Alexander Stephens was more a radical conservative than conservative. These terms aren't scientific, anyway. but it has been 145 years, it is a lost cause. My mom is from N. Carolina, how nice it would be to go back to the time her ancestors lived.
Build a time machine, we'll all go back to the time our nostalgias want us to go back to. Sentimentality is wonderful...
Just too bad it is equally futile.
David| 6.27.10 @ 2:30PM
Lincoln did not own slave because he sold them. His wife inherited 8 slaves from the death of her father and instead of freeing them, Lincoln got the cash.
James Pawlak | 3.26.10 @ 9:21AM
Lincoln never thought that the average Black would ever equal the average White in civic and intellectual areas. (He has been proved right.) He also used a military commission to try and execute 30-plus Native Americans waring or plotting against the USA during the War Between The States.
Louis Jenkins| 3.26.10 @ 9:48AM
That was the Santee Sioux I believe. Western Minn., and Wisc. dewellers.
Yes, Lincoln was not sold on freeing the blacks. Remember, he made the WBTS an issue about slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation (only in those states in open rebellion) when he realized that it would help the Union's international image. His first inagural address guaranteed the right of citizens to own their property, ie slaves. Some authors have hinted that he was considering forced immigration of freed slaves back to Africa after the war, but Booth eliminated that option.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 9:56AM
Thanks for reminding me, Louis. Let us also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in Confederate territory that the Union Army did NOT have control over. Therefore, if you were a slave in Confederate territory occupied by the Union Army..... you were STILL in bondage. Just another little fact that the Lincoln hagiographers never mention.
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:31AM
Lincoln had his grave flaws, but so did the three other great POTUSES, Washington, Coolidge, and Reagan.
Roughly every sixty years a great one comes along.
SCM| 3.26.10 @ 1:59PM
Yes, and about every 35 years or so (at least in the last 100 years) we get those other great destroyers of American freedom, like FDR, Carter and Obama.
Alan Brooks| 3.27.10 @ 11:59PM
"SCM| 3.26.10 @ 1:59PM
Yes, and about every 35 years or so (at least in the last 100 years) we get those other great destroyers of American freedom, like FDR, Carter and Obama."
So pessimism is in fact justified. Old Texican may be a little too old, he a few months ago advised someone blogging here to take happy pills to cure the commenter's entirely justified brief mention of entropy.
Now, there's a cure for entropy-- happy pills!
Gary Green| 3.26.10 @ 10:47AM
I wonder just how much good these divisive comments actually do. Is your slap in the face of Blacks going to decrease their number in the US or somehow change their actions to something that you would like? My point is that we can crow all we want about statistics that benefit us, but is that somehow going to make anyone's life any better? These negative statements/ comments only serve to make us feel better and others feel bad. They have no worth whatsoever.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 10:57AM
You lost me, Gary. What comments do you see as 'devisive' and why/how? What was said that was a 'slap in the face' to Black people?
Are you saying in effect that we should all be OK with having been lied to about Lincoln for 145 years ? Because somehow to object to being lied to is devisive and hurts peoples feelings?
RSVP
Mimi| 3.26.10 @ 12:38PM
Folks: What I'm seeing is this, Every word of Lincolns discourse with Stephan Dougles for all those months and years, the princples,,humor etc. We should use in todays slavery/ protection of the unborn issue. The Declaration , includes us all, Blacks, Whites and the unborn. Frankly, I feel this is the major issue of our time.
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:37AM
"His first inagural address guaranteed the right of citizens to own their property, ie slaves."
A real conservative would know that we can't judge as far back as 149 years ago by today's terms. that goes, yes, for the ante Bellum South; but again, BOTH sides got their just deserts.
God, IMO, is justice as much as anything. Tough toenails to all crypto white supremacists.
And so also to the North.
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 10:38AM
... sorry, desserts, not deserts, the Southwest got the deserts.
aware| 3.26.10 @ 10:41AM
You left out one....March 4,1861...first inaugural address........
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Unless my armies are bigger than your armies.
That was right after this...
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered..." Haha, those "paranoid" Southerners. At least we didn't have to worry about those things over the next 4 years.
Later on we have this....
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." Yeah that pesky tariff thing, never as moral high horse as "freeing the slaves", especially to the revisionists/winners.
I won't go on with this classic piece of hypocrisy but it is filled with these kind of things. No thanks to the invitation to worship the Lincoln myth.
Louis Jenkins| 3.26.10 @ 11:08AM
Ah yes, the Morrill Tariff thingie. Lincoln decided to collect the tariffs even if the southern states left the union. ie, Ft. Sumter. We must remember that Lincoln swore to hold the Union together by any means, including making a pact with Old Stitch if necessary. That's why he was all over the place with his policies at the beginning of the WBTS but eventually honed those policies into a moral argument.
But the Pretender n Chief has been outright honest in many respects. He told us what his purpose was during the campaign, and redistribution of the wealth was one of those. Some of us knew what we were getting. Let's be honest here folks, slavery is now alive and well in the United States. We still have public housing (slave quarters), slaves are still beholding to hand outs from the master (Big GovCo), people still labor for the master (Big GovCo's taxes), we are at the beck and call of the master (Health Care Reform), and we have virtually no say in how the laws and regulations are enforced or molded (Big GovCo). And horrors of horrors-in the antebellum days some southern freedmen of color owned slaves. Now we have a freedman of color in the Whitehouse who owns all of us regardless of race, color, or creed. Elitists have no boundaries.
aware| 3.26.10 @ 11:11AM
Yeah, but this "plantation" doesn't have the work requirements.
Alan Brooks| 3.26.10 @ 11:39AM
Aware,
the Jeff Davis myth is worse than the Lincoln Myth.
What is the 'Lost Confederate Cause' myth worth, anyway? a warm bucket of tobacco spit?
aware| 3.26.10 @ 11:52AM
I thought this article was about Lincoln, excuse me. I must have missed the part about Davis. Hang on while I read it again.
Red Phillips | 3.26.10 @ 1:16PM
Mr. Brooks, the Confederate Cause was the preservation of the constitutional republic as originally intended by the Founders which included a right to secession. Why do you think the Confederate Constitution was so similar to the US Constitution?
victor| 3.27.10 @ 5:23PM
Since secession is not mentioned in the Constitution, maybe you could point it out for me?
brad| 10.15.10 @ 5:49PM
Victor, read the tenth amendment.
AJM | 3.26.10 @ 4:01PM
aware,
You might also want to consider that Lincoln was a politician, and then as today, politicians say things to mollify their oponents. Clearly at the time of his election he was concerned about what he could say, and legally do, without starting a war. Nor could he afford to alarm his supporters by appearing too radical.
A politician who always speaks his true mind is one who will end up staying at home.
aware| 3.26.10 @ 4:11PM
Granted, no one can rise to the heights of hypocrisy like a politician. But few ever rose to the heights of Lincoln either.
Rank and File| 3.26.10 @ 10:53AM
Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents -- arguably, our greatest. That means among the 43 (yes it's been 43, not 44) imperfect and mortal men who have taken the oath of office, Lincoln stands very much at the top of the list.
That he put his neck and life on the line for the preservation of our Union is beyond question. Also, that he did more than any other US President for that Black community is beyond question.
I don't understand some of the comments here, acting as though Lincoln is being offered up as a God. He is not. He was, however, an outstanding human being. Lincoln could have backed away from difficult issues like slavery, or compromised his way through his terms and yet he chose not to.
I appreciate the article given recent efforts (even here) to blemish this man as simply tolerant or indifferent toward slavery. That is like saying Reagan was indifferent toward Communism. I'm sure you could find quotes from Reagan that were lukewarm toward Communism in his early career. But judge the man's entire life, and you see a statesman who stood firm in the face of the expansion of Communism. It's absurd that the point needs to be made.
Similarly, judge Lincoln’s entire life and contributions to the issues of the black man. Lincoln did more than any President to end slavery. Period.
He had a vision of the greatness of our country. He ended a practice -- slavery -- that was encouraged and begun and tolerated under the imperialist rule of Britain and other European colonists. Lincoln and America eradicated what they gave root. That is a fact. Whether actually having a Black History Month is in the spirit of MLK's dream of judging by character and not skin color is not relevant to Lincoln’s place in white and especially black history. Lincoln is deserving of all the praise he has received.
Every. Single. Bit.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 11:40AM
Not a God, but a Saint (hagiography). The U.S. was the only country in the Western Hemisphere that ended slavery by having a war. You believe ending slavery trumps all the negative things about Lincoln. That's fine. But then why have we been lied to about him for 145 years? Even many many Northerners at the time saw him as a tyrant and hypocrit and he violated and undermined the Constitution. Only after his death did he become 'Saint Abraham'. And that was done to assuage the guilt of those who attacked the region of the country that the Northerners willingly went to Africa to bring slaves here to sell to those Southerners: and they (the North) traded slaves right up to the beginning of the war. Lincoln needs to be seen in a realistic light. That's all we who are not admirers of Abe are talking about. We're tired of being sold a bill of goods about a guy who did much to bring about the kind of Federal Leviathan we are now stuck dealing with.
So: Abe the racist; violated and undermined the Constitution; greatly aided the establishment of runaway Federal government; ended slavery at the expense of 600,000 American lives; used slaves for his own political/war ends; at a cost equal to buying all the slaves from slave owners to emancipate them; when every other Western country ended slavery peacefully. If this makes him a great man in your eyes, fine. I respectfully disagree.
axbucxdu| 3.26.10 @ 12:51PM
"We're tired of being sold a bill of goods about a guy who did much to bring about the kind of Federal Leviathan we are now stuck dealing with."
This statement cannot be overemphasized. Thank you for making it.
The state would be nothing if not for the illegal way it is funded, as today it is abetted in that effort by an unconstitutional Federal reserve. These counterfeit financial precedents were set, however, by none other than stinkin Lincoln.
By this standard, and this alone, he deserves perpetual scorn.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 1:19PM
Well said. I've always loved Lincoln. Now I know why. All the Paleo-cons & Libertarians hate him, LOL.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 1:20PM
My comment was to Rank and File.
pepper| 3.26.10 @ 1:40PM
And all perpetual war/big government neo cons deify him. At least you finally looked up paleo-conservative and expanded your knowledge.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 1:57PM
LOL @ you, pepper. Why are you hiding? The best teacher is by example, am I not correct? I have learned what paleo's are by "listening" to all of them here! Yes and by reading, too. And I am not interested in the least bit in your convictions and or beliefs.
As Martin Luther King said "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!"
And I intend on staying that way, thank you.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 2:01PM
Touche! Alright, Pepper. Extremely well said.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 2:06PM
Touche? LOL. At what? A liar's statement? Touche ole baby.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 2:24PM
LOL Aren't we snarky.
Climb down from you high horse, Margie. You posted a comment with the intent to agitate and provoke paleocons and libertarians, by name no less. Pepper responded with a great retort. It was very humorous. Then you took umbrage and responded with non sequiturs. I complimented Pepper and now you are trying to bust my chops. I don't care if you like Abe, but you snarked and then Pepper snarked you one better. You asked for it.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 2:49PM
Hey Jimmy,
You're "analysis" is wrong. "pepper" the coward who has to hide behind a new handle, lied. That was an attack. A cowardly one. "Neo-Cons" as he/she SNARKILY said, "Deify" Lincoln. I don't Deify him, nor do others. That is a broad snotty, snarky statement. Humorous? I doubt that.
#2~ All of your hateful comments about Lincoln deserved my comment of admiration, which is heartfelt. If anyone's comments are intended to agitate it is those of your "ilk."
But you are right in one thing~ I did ask for it. Daring to say I love Lincoln is simply heretical!
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 3:08PM
LOL Snarky, snarky.
See my previous comment for my response to your latest rant.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 3:18PM
You're a fine gentleman, Jim P. A fine gentleman indeed.
aware| 3.26.10 @ 4:16PM
Since libertarians and paleos think liberty is more important than guns and butter, what is it about them you find offensive?
Just wondering, I thought we were fighting nazis, fascists, commies, progressives, and socialists cause they hate liberty. No offense.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 4:41PM
I'm sorry~are you talking to me? Since you didn't reply to me directly?
If you are asking me what I find offensive about paleos and Libertarians, I have this to say to you~ It's the other way around!
aware| 3.26.10 @ 5:33PM
I see.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 6:38PM
Aware:
Aint she sweeeet?
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 6:49PM
But not quite as fine as you.
aware| 3.26.10 @ 7:34PM
Can't imagine why all those paleos and libertarians find her offensive(in her words), huh JimP?
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 7:43PM
Aware:
Indeed! LOL
Have a great weekend.
Margie| 3.26.10 @ 8:14PM
Oh goody, we're so united.
Derek Leaberry| 3.26.10 @ 11:26AM
Lincoln is the enemy of my people. The blood of 600,000, Yankee and Southern, are on his hands.
jose goldfinger| 3.26.10 @ 11:31AM
The mythical Lincoln deserves Every.Single. Bit. of praise but not the" Real Lincoln." Abe was a war criminal who deserved to be hung along with his murderous generals. He got what he deserved but sadly about 4 years too late for the 600k plus who lost their lives during his reign of terror and for the irreparable harm he did to this country that lasts to this very day.
Tim| 3.26.10 @ 12:21PM
BHM is primarily an ignored bore , along with it's pandering apologist bores.
Becky| 3.26.10 @ 12:34PM
I think the converstation is quite interesting and do not feel the subject itself should be avoided. At the current AG's encouraging, we should engage in these harder subjects to discuss in public with some bravery.
What the Lincoln myths have created today is a leader symbolic for a lot of black and white liberals (and even some of us conservatives) that is similar to the complaints about current movies like Avatar and Dances with the Wolves. The white man enters the world of people of a different color and culture and becomes the leader that saves them.
What is missing in our real life story of Abe, is that he did not warn, nor equip, those he emancipated (as well as the rest of us) to be aware of the risk of future slavery whatever the color of skin or circumstances of that control (economic or political), i.e. how this would all work out without him to prevent a future enslavement. As mentioned above, he reasoned if blacks could be enslaved, whites could too (and have been over history).
Are high welfare rolls, illigitimacy, lower education standards a type of slavery? Is being unable to rely on the support of your family or yourself forcing you to rely on the state or charity of others to provide your day to day needs of food, shelter, clothing and now health care not an enslavement?
The problem with history is that the main players are no longer around to evaluate how things worked out themselves.
mike| 3.26.10 @ 12:55PM
Lincolne was one of the greatest presidents to ever serve this great nation. None of us can know really what it was like then and what he must have dealt with knowing the country was descending into civil war.
I live in the south and I love it and it's rich traditions but it was NEVER a sovereign country and had not right to secede. All of you that trumpet this to the extreme have not taken into account what would have been the result of Lincoln had done nothing. We would be separate today and very much poorer as well.
And to be honest, with all that is going on today, why is this even being debated???? It is history.
Red Phillips | 3.26.10 @ 1:25PM
"I live in the south and I love it and it's rich traditions but it was NEVER a sovereign country and had not right to secede."
Perhaps you should try to prove that statement using history instead of just asserting it. Good luck.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 1:25PM
It is being debated because,"The past is prologue" and "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." It is relavant because there are unpleasant similarities between Lincoln who violated the Constitution and Obama.
We cannot know what would have been the result if Lincoln had not acted as he did, so that argument is unconvincing to me. As for comments about it being 'fallacy' to view past events through today's prism, no one is doing that here that I have read. People are setting the historical record straight. Respectfully, all this talk about we can't know about the past with certainty and it's a fallacy sounds like attempts to avoid uncomfortable truths about Lincoln.
JimP| 3.26.10 @ 1:34PM
As a matter of fact, The United States of America signed a formal peace treaty with The Confederate States of America, thus legally acknowledging the existence of the sovereign nation of The C.S.A. Nations do NOT sign peace treaties with non sovereigns. Just another little fact 'they' don't ever talk about so as to help keep us on 'the resevation/plantation', so to speak.
Becky| 3.26.10 @ 2:06PM
Nov. 19, 1853 Lincoln gave his Gettysburg address in which he ended with the hope that the deaths that consecrated the ground would not be in vain.
White men bought and owned slaves from Africa because black men in Africa sold them. The defense of Lincoln and the North in correctly including the issue of slavery as a part of the reasons the War Between the States was fought, does have similarities to me today.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." Frederick Douglass
Without my saying, what interpretation of Douglass' words in light of today's America come to mind?
Louis Jenkins| 3.26.10 @ 4:50PM
Excuse me, Becky, that was 1863. But that's okay.
NavyBrat | 3.26.10 @ 1:15PM
"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."
--- General Pat Cleburne, CSA
Since history is indeed written by the victors, Gen. Cleburne's words have an air of truth to them these days. Its evident that some see Lincoln as a villian & some see him as a saint. Regardless of how we may view him, I agree with Mr. Brooks that it is a fallacy to view those events through the prism of today's society. I find myself split on the good & bad done by Lincoln.
Nick| 3.26.10 @ 2:30PM
NavyBrat,
I'm with you.
I too, am of two minds when it comes to President Lincoln. I am still learning about that period, so I have made no conclusions.
But, I do love using the title "War Between the States", because it seems to drive bleeding heart liberals crazy. Ha-ha!
NavyBrat | 3.26.10 @ 3:18PM
Brother Nick. If you're still in the process of learning more about the War Between the States, I recommend Shelby Foote's 3 book series, "The Civil War." They will take you FOREVER to read, but they are the most authoratative works ever written on the subject. I originally hail from Tennessee, so I'm kinda partial to the Southern side of things. Here's a good link to a site with various quotes from the war. The homepage of this site is a virtual treasure trove of info on the war from a Southern point of view.
http://www.rulen.com/partisan/quotes.htm
Enjoy!!!
PS. The Ken Burns PBS special wasn't all that bad either.
Nick| 3.26.10 @ 4:41PM
NavyBrat,
Thanks so much for taking the time, I really appreciate it.
Shelby Foote was the best thing about Burns' "The Civil War."
I loved his 3 hour "In Depth" interview on CSPAN.
NavyBrat | 3.26.10 @ 4:54PM
Brother Nick, it's my pleasure. Have a good weekend. Watch out for the Toddard's of the world!
Nick| 3.26.10 @ 4:59PM
NavyBrat,
You too!
Thanks again!
Derek Leaberry| 3.26.10 @ 1:55PM
The truth about Lincoln was that he was a railroad lawyer who helped his clients loot the government. During the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Republican Party looted the government much like 20th and 21st Century Democrats have done. In the 1800s, the Republican Party was largely a criminal gang.
As for secession, the US would be better off split up. Even states like tiny Maryland should be split. We on the conservative Eastern Shore are tired of the yoke of Baltimore, Montgomery County and Prince George's County.
StMichRick| 3.27.10 @ 1:20PM
Hey Derek;
Where can we read more of this 'looting?'
If all this 'splitting' took place you would be speaking German.
Ark Ashamed of Bill| 3.26.10 @ 2:26PM
Mr. Thunder fails to understand that Lincoln is the hero of Progressives and the Left because he fundamentally changed the nature of this country and put it on the path of transformation from a constitution was the compromise the North had to make to obtain the current Consitituion and the fact that the North ratified the Bill of Rights and its prohibition of uncompensated government takings of property. Also unmentioned is why, exactly, if prohibition of slavery was a fundamental tenet of Christianity, did it become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Daniel J. Flynn's "A Conservative History of the American Left" makes it clear that the Abolitionists were leftists, which is hardly surprising given their contempt for the Constitution (which William Lloyd Garrison once burned), and Lincoln's Republican Party welcomed communists from the failed European revolutions of 1848. It is no accident that they were radical, and thus leftist, Republicans.
Mr. Thunder also fails to appreciate that the president is elected to preserve the Constitution and execute the laws of the United States. Frederick Douglass had foreknowledge of John Brown's terrorist action at Harpers Ferry and was thus a traitor, yet Lincoln was chummy with him in the same manner that Obama is pals with Bill Ayers.
Lincoln was not highly regarded in his day, and his rise to perceived greatness appears to be part of the revision of America known as the Progressive Era, which Obama has revived. Indeed, the so-called civil rights movement became a movement to promote socialism in the early 1960s, and this is what Black History Month celebrates, along with Stalinists like W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson. Lincoln is the ideal historical hero for those who want a socialist Amerika; people who prefer the principles of liberty of the Founders should look elsewhere.
Ark Ashamed of Bill| 3.26.10 @ 2:31PM
[first sentence should read] Mr. Thunder fails to understand that Lincoln is the hero of Progressives and the Left because he fundamentally changed the nature of this country and put it on the path of transformation from a constitutional republic to a socialst republic and that acceptance of the peculiar institution was the compromise the North had to make to obtain the current Consititution and the fact that the North ratified the Bill of Rights and its prohibition of uncompensated government takings of property.
Becky| 3.26.10 @ 2:35PM
Some here have argued whether history is relevent today. I say it is especially for those that are making history today; those holding political offices.
Is calculus important for the homemaker to understand? Doubtful, but it is for the engineer that developed products that she uses everyday. She relies on experts to fully understand and make decisions for her. In a large society specialization is a natural occurance.
When a legislator bases his actions on a non existent clause in the Constitution, history becomes important for those of us amatuers because it is revealed he may be a danger.
You wouldn't bet your life on a bridge designed by a grade school student as a science project, and the same goes for everything else in the adult world.
Thom| 3.26.10 @ 7:11PM
Becky, I would argue that “history” is always important because it serves the function of the collective conscience or wisdom of humanity and without it we continue to repeat the same horrible mistakes in one form or the other perpetually. The people who typically discount history are usually the ones that want to get away with some variation of what has already happened in the past all too often. On balance, humanity hasn’t leaned any new lessons since it keeps forgetting the previous ones about every other generation or so. We have a very highly schooled society today but otherwise a terribly ignorance one regarding the wisdom of the ages. We are going to pay for our ignorance.
confedewite wiwwy| 3.26.10 @ 8:31PM
If I pwomise to be a good widdle boy and wemember that wincoln was a wasict and a weawwy bad man and pwomise to tell evwey buddy I know fow the west of my wife will that be good enough so then i won't be tewwibwy ignowant and want to do bad wike you say?
Thom| 3.26.10 @ 9:15PM
A perfect example of a Harvard Law School graduate when they can't figure out how to turn the spell checker on.
confedewite wiwwy| 3.26.10 @ 10:55PM
Wait a minute. I am a wetiwed Hawvawd Pwofessow. How dawe yow. And what's wong with my spewwing anyway? Bawney Fwank says it's gweat.
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 9:44AM
I try real hard to not mix Frank the Barney into any subject of substance.
confedewite wiwwly| 3.27.10 @ 1:17PM
I'm so sowwy. I agwee. Can we agwee on one thing, though? Can we wowk togethew to Wepeal the Democwats?
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 1:53PM
Certainly, else we will all hang separately if not individually.
jacobite| 3.26.10 @ 2:55PM
I missed the evidence that Lincoln considered Africans-in-America socially or otherwise equal to whites. I'm not sure what he thought, but I didn't see it addressed in the article. Many historians at least agree that Reconstruction under Lincoln would have been different than under the Radical Republicans (who morphed into a faction of today's Dems, while those Dems morphed into today's Southern GOP). This 'morphing' was the result of the 'Second Reconstruction' of the 1960s -- just as anti-white as the first.
NavyBrat | 3.26.10 @ 3:24PM
"Why not let the South go in peace?"...question asked of Lincoln
Lincoln's reply: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the war?"
axbucxdu| 3.26.10 @ 5:43PM
Yeah, no kidding. C.f. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. While it was proposed more than a year after he was assassinated, there was no doubt how his successors answered Lincoln's question.
Pingback| 3.26.10 @ 4:04PM
Is Conservative Debate on Lincoln and the War Between the States Moving Our Way? | Co links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 3.26.10 @ 4:17PM
It's hard to know exactly what Mr. Thunder's article is meant to accomplish. He says he wants to give us a fresh look at Lincoln in order to (I think) reclaim some of the ground lost to conservative critics over the last decade or so. But then he proceeds to cite events and facts that are A) widely known to anyone who's done any research whatsoever on Lincoln, and, more importantly, B) which do nothing whatsoever to counter the critics' claims. A case in point: he mentions the Emancipation Proclamation and how it turned the boring, old, mundane Union army into an "army of liberation." (Gee whiz, you can almost hear the angels singing when you read that, can't you?) Unfortunately, what Mr. Thunder fails to mention--and one hasd to wonder whether it is due to ignorance or a wish to deceive--is that the Proclamation very pointedly EXCLUDED the very states in which it could have had immediate and full effect: the slave states that had remained in the Union. Slaves in Kentucky--Union slaves, folks--remained slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment. In other words, the most significant point for Lincoln's conservative critics is not that his Proclamation applied to states over which he had no political control, which is what Mr. Thunder seems to want us to believe. It is that it DID NOT apply to any states over which he DID have control. The critics rightly point out that Mr. I-Love-The-Slaves, when given the opportunity to actually free a bunch of them, failed to do so. Now, there were political reasons for that, admittedly, and I do believe Lincoln was looking forward to the day when all slaves would be freed--a day which, in Lincoln's mind, might not have come about had he included the Union border states in the Proclamation. But to omit the fact I just mentioned reeks to high heaven of partisan chicanery (or, as I said, ignorance, which calls into question Mr. Thunder's competence to be lecturing us on this subject).
Similar points to the above could be made about each entry in Mr. Thunder's chronology.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.10 @ 5:58PM
Interesting comments, much more sage then the original post.
Black History Month is another farce designed to appease the PC crowd. Any holiday or history month for blacks naturally excludes whites from the celebration.
If you don't believe it, just look at the MLK federal holiday. It's become a black fest where whites are ignored, excluded or ridiculed by referring to them as "slave owners."
This does not appear to be the ideal end game of a society based on equality. It's not that you can't mention the differences, it's just that the federal government has to ignore the Constitution to do so. And it's never lead to any success.
Thom| 3.26.10 @ 6:32PM
My only real grief with BHM is that in practice in most government schools and government subsidized schools it is a 12 month affair every year. As for Lincoln the 1st, his connection to Black History has been shrinking out of text books for decades and there is typically more actual facts presented about this complex man on this blog than you will find in most text books today. As far as I’m concerned we are reaping some of what he planted.
I’ve always found it amusing the way the “confederates” are treated equivalence with the Nazis while slavery was both legal in the North and the South for most of the period from the ratification of the Constitution till the outbreak of the Civil War and also indentured servitude was common in both from the early days as colonies along with outright slavery from 1619 on but the South being begged to join the little dust up around Boston in 1775 on and the final and decisive battles for the Revolution being won in the “South” that gave us the Constitutional Republic we are rapidly flushing down the toilet are typically overlooked.
Two of the central tenets of a republic are right of property and contracts. The social contract ratified into law with the signing of the Constitution had the force of law and Lincoln said many times he did not have the power to undo that but he and a majority in Congress did use majority rule to infringe on that social contract at every opportunity they got. Be it “slaves” or a herd of horses or cows, if you threaten the owner’s means of economic survival you will get a visceral reaction in return. We cut off fuel and raw material to Imperial Japan in 1941 and they went to war with us in less than 6 months because that threatened their survival.
One moral of Lincoln the 1st life lesson might be don’t defecate on a social contract signed into law voluntarily in a vain crusade to correct a collective guilt going all the way back to 1619 when the first slaves arrived at Jamestown where BHM is celebrated every day of the year now as a guilt trip. I’ve never had the slightest desire to “own” someone else but I have an even more visceral reaction to the concept of being “owned” by whatever means.
aware| 3.26.10 @ 7:37PM
Excellent post!
Thom| 3.26.10 @ 8:39PM
“By the war's conclusion, two million men had served on the Union side. Of these, 360,000 had died (110,000 were killed in action)”
Small but important points since we are trying to teach history here. One, did the 250,000 killed that were not “killed in action” die from food poisoning or fall off wagons reading Lincoln the 1st speeches? The salient difference in how a soldier ends up dead due to combat is irreverent to the outcome thus the Union lost 360,000 dead. The South, outnumbered 3 to 1 and having 1/5th the wealth of the Union lost almost 100,000 less and their Universal Health Care delivery system was far worse than the Union’s thus go figure.
Your figures for the number of men that served on the Union side are off by a number almost equal to the number of people that served in the Confederacy. If your numbers had been correct the Confederacy might have had a chance to win out numbered only a little better than 2:1.
Intervenor| 3.27.10 @ 3:42AM
This is an excellent article. One of the more bizarre aspects of American conservatism is that it is increasingly influenced by the neo-Confederate movement. Ironically, this phenomenon is occurring as the country becomes majority minority, meaning conservatives make themselves irrelevant in embracing such backwardness. Thunder has provided the kind of scholarship that helps curtail the encroachment of neo-Confederate apologia on actual history.
A few points:
• The Confederate Constitution guaranteed slavery into perpetuity. The U.S. Constitution did not. If the Confederacy had succeeded, human bondage might be occurring on this continent today.
• The Confederate states surrendered, agreeing they were part of the Union. The claim the Confederacy remained a sovereign nation has always been false.
• The comments of the neo-Confederates on the thread tell us one reason why it is important this history be discussed - there are still white supremacists attempting to mislead the citizenry. People with an understanding of the facts about the Civil War have a duty to respond.
aware| 3.27.10 @ 9:28AM
What the hell is a "neo-Confederate"?
The only ones I have seen still living in the past are the reparations crowd.
Next you'll be telling us that the Klan making a comeback.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own "facts". Check back....I only used the words of Lincoln himself. Not useless conjecture of what might have been.
You are using the subtle poison of the charge of racism to discredit opposing views.
Name that Game| 3.27.10 @ 1:55PM
Well what the hell is a "neo-conservative?"
Oh that's right. It's anyone who doesn't agree with you.
aware| 3.28.10 @ 12:57PM
The name of that game is called bait and switch. Hows that?
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 9:55AM
“The Confederate Constitution guaranteed slavery into perpetuity” The US Constitution guaranteed slavery into perpetuity unless you can find an expiration date for it in there. There is a very specific and concise process defined in the US Constitution for amending it and that was not followed in any shape form or fashion.
“The Confederate states surrendered, agreeing they were part of the Union. The claim the Confederacy remained a sovereign nation has always been false.” A Confederate army surrendered, what was left of one. An occupied people generally do what they are told to do at the point of a bayonet. An occupied people with most of their able bodied males dead or crippled and no economy had very little options left in 1865 but to “submit” to the mercy of the ones with 3 times the manpower and 5 times plus the wealth. “Surrender” as you define it was kind of a paper formality given the circumstances. The outcome would have been no different had they not “surrendered” as a matter of historical fact.
Black Kettle| 3.27.10 @ 1:57PM
"A Confederate army surrendered, what was left of one."
They started the damn thing.
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 2:32PM
Actually, Black Kettle they succeeded from a social compact entered into voluntarily that was being violated via majority rule in Congress and the Presidency being the last defense against majority rule made Lincoln’s election the last straw. The enumerated means to amend the constitution wasn’t even attempted by the majority in Congress thus the South had two broadly equally bad choices to make in their view. You’ll have to talk to one of them “confederates” to find out why they chose the one they did. I wasn’t there.
As for starting the war, well I respectfully disagree. The 11 Southern “states” voted to succeed form a Union that was in violation of that which is written in the Constitution and Lincoln called up forces to put down rebellion in “states” that had not rebelled but simply left the “Union”. The South did not attack the North. Ft. Sumter is not in the North and the garrison there was given the opportunity to leave.
I realize there are a lot of people who simply can’t get beyond the “moral” aspect of slavery which had been an abomination since the beginning of time and its existence in North American for about 250 years prior to when the Civil War broke out but the simple fact remains the binding “compact” that every state had voluntarily agreed to in order to become a “state” was being bypassed via MOB rule. Shit on a contract you put your signature to even today and typically bad things follow.
Over 140 years after the Civil War both sides still continue to talk past each other and ignore the foundation to the problem that led to the war. “Slavery” was the emotional argument of the time but there were more fundamental issues at work that took a very similar view of some today that “I won” ends an argument. It may end the argument but as history has shown it usually starts a fight.
There are practical reasons it takes two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the States to ratify an amendment thus if you don’t grasp that we know that MOB rule is ok with you.
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 10:06AM
Intervenor apparently works for the SPLC. His comments are classic SPLC propaganda if he doesn't work for them. They see 'Neo-Cons', Klansmen, church bombers and every other manner of bigot and domestic 'terrorist' under every pebble. Since they benefit financially from the existence of these 'threats', and ONLY by the existence of these threats, it is necessary for them to scour the internet seeking out anything they can distort and inflate into the new 'Birth of a Nation'. So, caveat emptor dear readers. Intervenor is trying to scare you into buying what he is selling. What is his product? Protection (from alleged bigots). In law enforcement terms, this is known as a "protection racket". He's using intimidation to 'protect' you (in this case scare you into donating to some organization like the SPLC). That's my opinion of Intervenor's comments.
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 10:12AM
“The comments of the neo-Confederates on the thread tell us one reason why it is important this history be discussed - there are still white supremacists attempting to mislead the citizenry. People with an understanding of the facts about the Civil War have a duty to respond.” You haven’t presented a single historical fact. You’ve resorted to labeling those that disagree with your opinion as “racists” or as someone with sympathy toward “slavery” without presenting a single piece of supporting data to back that claim up. History has never been as “pure as the wind driven snow” but for some history is that which only exists in their make believe world solely contained between their ears.
axbucxdu| 3.27.10 @ 10:27AM
Another SID evolution. Classify me as identified.
Interesting. I don't see the Founders, excepting Hamilton of course, agreeing with the institution of national banking nor the circulation of greenbacks to pay for the war.
So interventionist, are you suggesting the Founders were all "neo-confederates" to use your "terminology"?
Amazing how some would frame this discussion.
Alice Lillie | 3.27.10 @ 9:50AM
FYI, a few years ago I wrote an essay that partially dealt with Abraham Lincoln.
Please go to my website (where there are lots of essays) and click on "2005 (11)" and please weigh in yourself.
Steve| 3.27.10 @ 10:34AM
Lincoln eliminated States rights, and individual rights in many cases.
He was the Great Centralizer.
Everything he did was unconstitutional
He alone destroyed the Founders Vision of States Rights, Individual Liberty, and a small Central Government.
J.L.| 3.27.10 @ 11:07AM
Steve got it right. Lincoln gave the states the big Federal slap down and they have been slapping us ever since.
Intervenor| 3.27.10 @ 2:39PM
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own "facts." Exactly! The neo-Confederates falsely present 'the myth of the gallant South' as factual. The neo-bellum South was an oligopoly with human bondage as its foundation. The small tribe of wealthy plantation owners who dominated the society kept the rest of the white population in check with white supremacy, and, by limiting their rights. Men whose main advantage was they could consider themselves better than people of color did most of the fighting and dying for the Confederacy.
The U.S. Constitution did not guarantee the continuation of slavery. In fact, it foresaw the end of the slave trade. And, as Thunder pointed out, the nation, except the Southern oligopoly, was eliminating the apparatus of slavery step by step. The formation of the Confederacy was a desperate effort by the planters to continue the ostentatious lifestyle they had become accustomed to, which relied on slavery. The wealthiest men in the U.S. at the time of the Civil War were owners of plantations with hundreds or thousands of slaves. Their Confederate Constitution sought to guarantee that human bondage would continue forever.
Neo-Confederates are people who attempt to perpetuate the false claim "the South was right" in contemporary times. They try to justify slavery or claim it was beneficent. In fact, chattel slavery is one of the worst abuses of human rights the world has ever known.
The neo-Confederate movement became organized and produced a cottage industry of apologist material in the mid-1990s. It relies on segregationist groups such as the League of the South, the Council of Conservative Citizens, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the remnants of the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations for its bedrock support. Its leading 'lights' include Michael Hill, Kirk Lyons and Thomas Fleming. The people who post most of the neo-Confederate saber rattling to threads like this one are members of these longterm white supremacist groups.
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 3:55PM
Intervenor, if the thrust of your propaganda about the “small tribe of wealthy plantation owners who dominated the society” had a shred of truth to it the Civil War would have been over by the end of summer in 1861. The bulk of the Southern population had no slaves nor could they afford them. Do you know what the market value of a “slave” was in 1861? Fighting and dying against overwhelming odds for something you don’t own and can’t isn’t rational behavior and even Forest Gump grasp that part. You continue to ignore the material differences between the South and North; the binding wording of the Constitution which were just as binding in 1787 as it was in 1861 but that seems to escape you and that senseless speculation about motives over 140 years ago vs. today adds no value here. Everything I’ve said comes out of certified history books not propaganda pamphlets like you throw around here. Try demonstrating some factual understanding of the time in question and tell us how many of those “southern States” you say were part of that Union when they surrendered voted for the 14th Amendment. The correct answer is somewhere between 0 and 11. How many were allowed to vote? Again the correct answer is between 0 and 11.
What you are trying to justify here, using a historical event is MOB rule projected on the back of an emotional argument. It won’t float the boat here. I have copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and nowhere does Karl Marx signature appear on any of these documents.
As for “gallant” South, well again you would have to ask a “confederate” from that time but I think the material facts speak for themselves. Since you think the Northern cause was “gallant” by default let’s let history speak to the human cost of your grand crusade. Three times the man power, naval supremacy from day one, better equipped from day one. By any objective standard you chose the North had overwhelming forces and wealth upon which to conduct the war and seemingly an endless supply of Supreme military commanders. All this and the North still had to resort to the “draft” (which resulted in some nasty business in New York City in 1864) in order to maintain an army three times larger, better equipped and with mobility the South could only dream of and yet the South lasted for nearly four years. Add to this that Grant, the great genius of the Union army got over 40,000 more of his men killed in the spring 1864 campaign than the Confederates lost using senseless frontal assaults against grossly inferior numbers and which he could have freely maneuvered against to both isolate and defeat in detail. A true genius there from a military perspective if you overlook his body count and a “southerner” fighting for the North saved Grant’s ass at Shiloh. Losing a whole lot more men to a force that you have gross superiority over on several levels speaks to the grand incompetence of both Lincoln the 1st and Grant. Major Union and Confederate officers went to the same West point but it seems they took different courses of study.
So to be really bunt Intervenor, the men who fought against the Confederacy gave them their due and nobody was tried for “treason” or punished for illegally succeeding since it is not in the Constitution but I’m sure if you look hard enough you will find it right next to “separation of church and state” clause which follows right behind the “good and welfare” clause. The life and death rivalry between Sherman and Nathan Bedford Forrest during the war and what followed after the war illustrates something I doubt you will ever comprehend about the Civil War. Everybody lost something important.
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 2:49PM
Ridiculous. Don't be fooled by this guy. I repost my previous comment on him.
SPLC Redux:
Intervenor apparently works for the SPLC. His comments are classic SPLC propaganda if he doesn't work for them. They see 'Neo-Cons', Klansmen, church bombers and every other manner of bigot and domestic 'terrorist' under every pebble. Since they benefit financially from the existence of these 'threats', and ONLY by the existence of these threats, it is necessary for them to scour the internet seeking out anything they can distort and inflate into the new 'Birth of a Nation'. So, caveat emptor dear readers. Intervenor is trying to scare you into buying what he is selling. What is his product? Protection (from alleged bigots). In law enforcement terms, this is known as a "protection racket". He's using intimidation to 'protect' you (in this case scare you into donating to some organization like the SPLC). That's my opinion of Intervenor's comments.
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 3:01PM
Oh, and bye the bye: The Sons of Confederate Veterans IS an integrated organization. That's right America, there were Free Black Southern Men who volunteered to fight for the South and they served as infantry soldiers. Not cooks, man servants, camp followers of various type etc but SOLDIERS. For the South. Their descendants are welcomed with open arms by SCV: And NO, I am not a member of SCV.
Tim| 3.27.10 @ 3:07PM
Black African Slave Trader Apologists Try To Ignore And Rewrite History.
" The vast majority of slaves taken out of Africa were sold by African rulers, traders and a military aristocracy who all grew wealthy from the business. Most slaves were acquired through wars or by kidnapping. "
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 4:16PM
Tim, I'm always amused by Black Americans that try to defend the truth behind the slave trade and their ancestry homes part in enslaving their ancestors in the first place. The best defense I’ve heard was that being a slave in Africa was different than being a one in the South. If you ignore free room and board, clothing, some level of medical care, a longer life expectancy and a market value that tended to reinforce keeping you fit and alive vs none of that in Africa maybe they have a point but still a “slave” is a “slave”. That coupled with the failure of free slaves to succeed in Liberia using our Constitutional form of government and the continual failure of anywhere in Africa to embrace anything resembling the liberties and prosperity they have here speaks to the pathology of the collective mindset that just can’t handle the truth and move on with their lives. As I said up the list a bit, my biggest grief with BHM is that it is a 12 month affair in practice (and there aren’t enough months in a year for the other “groups” that need to be made to feel special about themselves). Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows the value of things is in the effort to acquire them and the Black African culture just doesn’t want to step up to the plate and earn that which most people do without a second thought. A whole lot of self delusion and denial at work here that destroys countless lives by the millions.
Intervenor| 3.27.10 @ 5:32PM
Charles M. Blow, the brilliant editorialist at the New York Times, has some interesting thoughts about why we are seeing another desperate, but determined, effort to stop history in its tracks by the extreme Right and the GOP currently.
Having recently debunked the neo-Confederate movement, I noticed the similarity between it and the tea party movement in their denials of reality. Clearly, the tea parties include the neo-Confederates and other paleoconservative movements, and are equally doomed to fail in their objectives. Blow's piece is headlined: "Whose country is it?"
"It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03.....7blow.html
The mythical past most conservatives want to return to is an idealized 1950s. The neo-Confederates would prefer an airbrushed 1850s. Neither ever really existed and never will. Students of history know this. Those ignorant of history do not.
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 5:45PM
LOL Of course. We should have predicted this. Neo-Confederates(alleged bigots)= Tea Partiers.
Leftwingers are sooo desperate these days.
aware| 3.28.10 @ 1:02PM
Brilliant editoralist when talking about NYT is a contridiction in terms. See Klugman, Freidman, Brooks,et.al. as reference.
Margie| 3.27.10 @ 5:53PM
I have to say that all this Neo this and Neo that is a bit confusing.
Uh, may I just ask this question for all of us? Even if we don't agree about Lincoln, are we allowed to agree to disagree? I mean I will do that right here and now because I care about our country like you do and don't want to see it going Socialist.
Can we agree that we need to take back our country and can we unite in that? I am not being snarky here but honest asking.
I want to know how we can unite and get rid of the Democrat Socialists. Do you think like I do that we need to nominate conservatives to the Republican party to do this?
That's what I think. You guys?
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 9:05PM
Sure Margie. I wasn't thinking of rejecting you from conservatism because you like Abe. We're still on the same team heading for the same goal as far as I'm concerned.
Margie| 3.27.10 @ 9:38PM
Hey Jim,
Thanks a bunch. I really appreciate it.
I don't have as much knowledge as you all do about Lincoln and the civil war. I'm going to do some reading. I do hope we are not headed for another one.
I'm with the guy that said Repeal the Democrats!
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 10:53PM
Hi Margie,
I recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". DiLorenzo is an economist who did a bio of Lincoln based on what Lincoln did vis a vis what Lincoln said. It's not a positive view of Lincoln. DiLorenzo is a free market economist, but his work is factual, meticulously documented and has passed muster with historians who are not hagiographers. It's a good starting point to read and compare to the stories we all heard about him growing up. The Feds have extensive info on Lincoln (at the memorial if I recall correctly) that corroborates most if not all of what DiLorenzo points out. Have fun and I look forward to reading your reactions on another AS blog post on Lincoln. They seem to have them on an almost regular basis.
Have a great weekend.
axbucxdu| 3.28.10 @ 12:10AM
"I want to know how we can unite and get rid of the Democrat Socialists."
The sure-fire way to kill these rats is to remove their cheese.
In other words, the state's ability to borrow the money that it alone is allowed to print must be eliminated, to force the government back onto revenue financing. Revenue financing makes the congress critters once again directly answerable to their boss: we the people.
So consider helping those get elected who at a minimum understand the financial subterfuge that is conducted to support these unsupportable programs.
If we don't act, the exponentials of finance will. That outcome wouldn't be pretty.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 12:28AM
Hi axbucxdu,
I want to see conservative Republicans elected who are financially responsible, so I think we agree. Boehner, Cantor and Ryan are 3 that come to mind who know that you can't spend more than you take in. And they know you should be spending less in the first place.
They've promised to defund this "health care" debacle come this January when the Dems are swept out, like the rubbish they are.
Any thoughts?
axbucxdu| 3.28.10 @ 5:04PM
Although I'm a registered independent, it's true that I have been a Republican fellow traveler ever since I had my first opportunity to vote (Reagan '1980). I'll be honest: After Bush 41's "read my lips" treason, then the party's desertion of the promises it made in 1994 (especially term limits), the final straw for me came when Bush 43 squandered his opportunity to use the party's control of both houses to reign in the state and instead offered us more "compassion" than conservatism. I consider this last slap down the worst, since G.W. shamelessly used the "lesser of two evils" strategy to gain reelection.
I'm a conservative but I remain just this side of the border between conservatism and libertarianism. In future, including this November, I'll be voting my conscience. If a minority party candidate is stronger on constitutional principles than either of the
Depublican or Republicrat options, I'll be casting my vote for the minority candidate. I can offer nothing more. If Republicans are serious, and I have my sincerest doubts that they are, they are certainly capable of fielding genuine constitutional candidates. They don't need my help. In any event, absolutely NO more lip service will do if they want my vote. My 0.2 cents.
P.S. On an unrelated note, I very much respect your "lion's den" approach to other discussions here on TAS. It must indeed be refreshing "to be free at last". However, I prefer to inhabit the catacombs. I hope you can respect that both were necessary to see that His story survived.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 5:49PM
Wow. Thank you for the really kind words in your p.s. I appreciate that more than you know. I've noticed and enjoyed reading your posts as well and consider you a sharp shooter, which IMHO is the only way to be!
I think when I turned 18 I registered as an Independent LOL thinking it meant I was independent, as in "an independent thinker." Just imagine where I'd be if Jesus didn't save me! Well I didn't vote I'm ashamed to say till many years later. Better that than my vote ever went to a Democrat! I started paying attention around the time Bill Clinton ran for Pres. and cast my first vote in opposition to him, and for Bush 42. I have always voted Republican since then because I view it as a vote for the ideas of the party and not the person who is infallible. Like Rush said there are no Communists or Marxists in the Republican party.
I do understand how you feel about voting on principle but that's how I look at it. Though I know that's how you look at it I still would encourage you to vote Republican. :^) I'll always do that, it's just in me.
I think if we all get more involved locally in backing some conservative nominees in the party then we'll have more success.
To that end,
I respect and admire you, there in the catacombs,
God bless.
axbucxdu| 3.28.10 @ 7:13PM
Thx, and have a Happy Easter;)
aware| 3.28.10 @ 1:06PM
Put me down with you Margie. Well said!
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 2:16PM
Thanks, and onward! :^)
Thom| 3.27.10 @ 7:28PM
Margie, of course we need to unite but let me see if I can put this in a perspective that makes some sense of all the above.
I’ve read some of Lincoln’s writings and there was clear anguish in him with regard to how to deal with what he had to deal with. I’ll tread lightly here but Lincoln’s entire political career was built up a crusade around a single issue and when people do that they tend to reap the consequences of a rather narrow minded view of the world around them. When he said he didn’t have the power to free slaves or end slavery he was right but Congress had the power to trump slavery through numerous means not the least of which was taxes and traffics on Southern goods…..and Lincoln would have let those things take place. Some of that had already started to happen. The North couldn’t get the votes needed for an amendment to outlaw slavery thus they started to undercut it through majority rule. Does any of this sound familiar with current events? The problems for the “republicans” is that they have wedded themselves to the myth of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator and overlooked the clear violations of the Constitution he committed the even more clear and present danger of “force makes right” approach to thorny issues like this. If you embrace the myth of Lincoln and overlook the sorted details you then have no leg to stand on with Lincoln the 2nd which is current events. How many times have you heard from the Democrats in the last year, “the Republicans did this too”? Three Presidents have great big monuments in Washington DC, two were slave owners. Add to this the Black African population has freely enslaved itself again to the Democrat Party in overwhelming percentages and it is kind of clear to those of us who look at history through an objective lens that Lincoln’s crusade was in vain. Hard core Lincoln apologists just don’t want to accept that the precedents he set in motion have undermined the fundamental protections of the Constitution for all of us ultimately. The Nation has been on the march into “socialism” since the enactment of the 16th amendment and the implementation of the “progressive income tax” which was a favorite with both Lincoln and Karl Marx. Note, I’m not comparing Lincoln to Marx in any way but just pointing out the people willing to cast off principles embedded in the Constitution for short term gains tend to get the fleas of some pretty nasty other people. So yes Margie we need to “unite” but you have to have a clear historical perspective so that you can separate the myths of history from the real deal. When anyone compares King Obama to the greatness of Lincoln you need to know the whole story of Lincoln, not the myth. In population adjusted terms, Lincoln’s crusade cost just short of 6 million lives if it were fought today with the same weapons and tactics.
So the next time you hear someone call another person a neo-confederate for disagreeing on matters of Lincoln just remember what Lincoln’s actual body count was in 1865 when all was said and done, 618,000 dead Americans. He chose to not let the South go. I take it at face value Lincoln did not want “war” but like King Obama he was fixated on a single outcome in his presidency no matter what it took.
Margie| 3.27.10 @ 10:01PM
Thom,
Thank you. You have said SO much here. There's a lot to digest. In all I think that the times were so different back then. I just don't know if I can make the same judgement call as you have. In reading NavyBrat's post @1:15, I have to say I feel the same way.
Like I said to JimP., I don't know everything that you know and I will do some reading. Any suggestions?
Thanks again,
Margie
Thom| 3.28.10 @ 5:29PM
Margie, I’ve been studying a particular aspect of history (not just ours) for almost 40 years and if I continue another 40 (not possible) I might have a fairly good idea of all the factors that go into that portion I’ve studied but it would be difficult to point to a single, let alone a select handful of sources that can be trusted to make an objective stab at it. Several others have made suggestions already but what I would look for is something that does not have an ax to grind. That is difficult to find if published after the 1960s it seems. I would also add that one’s understanding of history is one part common sense and one part having lived some. Take away one or the other and you tend to get very narrow minded views of things. Many have pointed out you can’t view history through our prism of life and that is true universally. We take almost everything for granted as a people and cast off the lessons of the past simply because a significant portion our society wants the riches of heaven on this earth…. And I’m not a Bible thumper…… One of my sources is A Patriot’s History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. In some sense they have also bought into the Lincoln worship but it is about as concise history of this Nation as you will find but there are numerous other sources that should go along with this. The one thing to remember is that history was made by people, plural, and there will be different views that need to be folded together to get a truer picture.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 8:31PM
Thank you Thom. Great points too well taken, and I look forward to getting the book you mention and after I read it I'll let you know what I think!
Tim| 3.27.10 @ 8:08PM
Charles M.Blow,an appropriate name.
Second, In broad outline, the Confederate Constitution is an amended U.S. Constitution. Even on slavery, there is little difference. Whereas the U.S. Constitution ended the importation of slaves after 1808, the Confederate Constitution forbade it. Both constitutions allowed slave ownership.
Do your homework race hustling Libtard.
JimP| 3.27.10 @ 9:14PM
Fm the NY Times web page:
"Charles M. Blow is The New York Times's visual Op-Ed columist. His column appears in The Times on Saturday....
Mr. Blow joined The New York Times in 1994 as a graphics editor and quickly became the paper's graphics director, a position he held for nine years....
he led The Times to a best of show award from the Society of News
....in 2006 to become the Art Director of National Geographic Magazine. Before coming to The Times, Mr. Blow had been a graphic artist at The Detroit News.”
Yep, nothing prepares you better to know history than being a Graphic Artist of the Society Page of the NY Times. When Charles M. Blow speaks, historians listem.
ROTFL
Intervenor| 3.27.10 @ 11:57PM
"Can we agree that we need to take back our country and can we unite in that?"
No. You really are not grasping the facts:
• The country belongs to ALL Americans. Not just the white, the aging, men, evangelicals or the wealthy. So, there is no one to 'take it back' from.
• The United States is a democratic republic. That means our leaders are chosen by voting largely. Voters elected Barack Obama President by a significant majority in 2008. Most of us are united in having selected the President and the majority Democrat U.S. Congress we have now. The 2008 election demonstrated the system working exactly the way it is supposed to.
• The U.S. is a capitalist country that tries to soften the brutality of unfettered capitalism with some regulation of the economy and industry. In socialist countries the government owns industry and completely controls the economy. The health care insurance reform law, a great achievement for the Obama administration, regulates some of the insurance industries worst practices while leaving control of the health care industry to corporations. A socialist country would control the health care industry.
I recommend you reread Charles Blows' op-ed, setting aside your notion that most Americans do not have a stake in national policy. That attitude is as dated as the Confederates' belief that only white Christian men who owned real property had a right to full participation in their society.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 12:16AM
You're nuts, you're really and truly nuts.
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 9:51AM
And he's their 'heavy hitter'. The 'Cleanup man' in baseball parlance. An 'A' Team member like this bodes well for our future victory.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 3:46PM
Good point. As we know the Left is its own worst enemy!
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 3.28.10 @ 8:12AM
The trouble educated men encounter when attempting to evaluate and counter leftist spewers of nonsense lies in trying to determine whether said spewers are being willfully deceitful or just plain stupid. Happily, Intervenor presents us with no such problem.
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 3.28.10 @ 8:50AM
There's little point in addressing all of Intervenor's errors, which are as easily seen through as his skull by most people, but I do want to address his claims about Socialism since there seems to be a lot of confusion about this, even among people with brains.
Socialism IS NOT a system in which the means of production are all owned by the state (i.e. the collective, the "commons"). That system is known as Communism. The USSR was a communist country. There was no, or practically no, private industry within the Soviet empire.
Socialism is a system in which the means of production remain privately owned, but are nevertheless DIRECTED by the state. Sweden, for example, is a socialist country because most of its industry is in private hands, but those private hands are tightly bound, regulated, and directed by the Swedish government. Nazi Germany was socialist as well, but not communist. Communists were, in fact, the Nazis' hated rivals.
Hence, contrary to Intervenor's implication, those who argue that Obama is a socialist are not arguing that Obama wants the U.S. government to own all industry--all businesses--in this country. What they're claiming is that Obama wants the U.S. government to DIRECT and GOVERN all industry in this country...and in that they are perfectly and obviously correct.
cuban pete| 3.28.10 @ 12:20PM
This analysis is quite good. Thank You.
They are a superb example of the academic, detached intellectual. Let others do the spade work and then come in to criticize and control.
Although I would still like to see BHO's transcripts to verify he is as smart as advertised.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 12:49PM
I agree that was a great explanation, EEE, of the differences between Socialism & it's brother, Communism. Both of my husband's parents came from Russia, his Dad was in Stalin's Air force against the Nazis, and was friends with his Son, who drank heavily. (He ended the relationship because of this). He also graduated with high honor from his academy. He was shot down and captured but later bribed a guard with the watch he got as a gift from the academy! Amazing stories from both parents about all of this but my point is that yes there is a difference between the 2 evils but they have the same father. The father of lies, Satan.
BHO's smart in a Saul Alinsky kind of way.
Obie Wan| 3.28.10 @ 12:18AM
The founders knew the issue of slavery wasn't going away,it was just postponed. While the southern founders were not willing to end a lucrative economic system based on slavery, they knew as well as their northern countrymen that a nation established on the idea that "all men are created equal" would have to square this principle against the practice of slavery somewhere down the road. We all know that the "somewhere down the road" time came when an anti-slavery politician named Abraham Lincoln was elected President. As for "Black History Month", it's most definitely a PC practice every bit as much as affirmative action, quota systems and being labeled a racist for disagreeing with Barack Obama on policies !!!
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 9:47AM
Yes, those darn Southerners! But.... what about the fact that Northern slave holders sold their slaves to the Southern slave holders. NO Yankee slave owner lost money on his 'investment' while divesting himself of his slaves before the war. There was also the coincidencd of the timing. Curiously free white labor (which was cheaper than owning slaves) was abundantly available to replace slave labor right at the time Northerners were suddenly being noble about man's inhumanity to man. Then there's that irritating little fact that the New England slave trade-which was the bedrock of the N. Eastern economy- continued right up to the 'Civil' War. The NE slave traders took the slaves to the Carribean and Central and S. America. Hmmm. It would seem that there is equal 'guilt' to go around. Go to Slavenorth.com to read more documented facts about Northern slavery and just how 'noble' those Northern slave owners really were.
Obie Wan| 3.28.10 @ 1:44PM
Hold on JimP, my point wasn't to give a "pass" to Northeners over slavery but to point out that there was an economic reality that allowed compromise to the "all men are created equal" idea in the Declaration. That being said, slave traders or not,cheap white labor or not,the North never had the economic incentive to continue slavery that the South had.The fact that the Northern Founders went along with their Southern counterparts during the Constitutional Convention to allow slavery to continue made them every bit as responsible.But I reiterate,slavery was a can kicked down the road for a future generation of Americans to deal with !!!
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 3:06PM
"...While the southern founders were not willing to end a lucrative economic system..."
This wording places the responsiblity primarily on the shoulders of Southerners for the continuation of slavery. At that time there was NO practical alternative for providing the labor needs of the Southern slave owners. The was NO mechanical alternative to manual labor then: and your point ignores the issue about slaves being very valuable 'property' in which Southern slave owners had huge investments. And remember the Northern slave owners sold their slaves to the Southern slave owners in the main. Another convenient 'out' for in their favor, yet contradictory to their supposed noble intentions about slavery. The nation did not have enough money to buy out the Southerners and there were not enough free whites in the South to do the work. Not that they would have anyway. White Southern culture was predominatly Celtic in origin. Hence the free whites were not going to do manual labor. Read Grady McWhiney's "Cracker Culture" for further explanation. It's fascinating and enlightening.
If you really get into the research you find that Northerners were equally at fault for any lack of resolution to the problem and that they very willingly continued to profit handsomely, for three fourths of a century, from the illegal slave trade they conducted as well as the agricultural produce from the South and Southern slaves.
"the North never had the economic incentive to continue slavery that the South had" thus making it EASY for them to end slavery in the North, continue to benefit enormously from slavery in the South, and other new world countries via the New England slave trade, hypocritically thump their chests about evil Southerners and write the history books that let themselves off the hook for it all. As I said, when you really get into the historical research, this is what you find out. Don't take my word for it. Do the research yourself. I didn't like what I was finding initially, but then I got ticked off that I had been lied to my whole life. After that I started to ask why was I lied to. No easy answers to that one either. Slavenorth.com is a good starting point. I suggest you start there.
Yosemeti Sam| 3.28.10 @ 2:57AM
Um, exactly whose busts were carved into
Mount Rushmore?
Wiki excerpt:
" ... to represent the first 150 years of American history. These presidents were selected ... because of their role in preserving the Republic ..."
BHO will be lucky to have paperweight busts
of himself made.
BTW, any news on that Mao Zedong White House
Christmas tree ornament whereabouts?
Gordon| 3.28.10 @ 3:02AM
I am a white conservative, but more importantly; I am a Christian. The institution of slavery is TOTALLY antithetical to Christian principles such as "be kind to one another", "don't steal another man's property, his wife, his children, his life" and "don't kidnap", among many others. When Christians in America violated these fundamental principles they sowed and then reaped destruction. We are fortunate that they whole republic wasn't torn down replaced with a tyrannical government. Mr. Licoln was an imperfect instrument in the hands of the Almighty to settle this mighty wrong.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 12:07PM
Wow. That sounds pretty awesome to me. This is pretty much how I have viewed him, (your last sentence), all of my life.
I read from a website some of General Lee's thoughts on slavery from before Lincoln. First of all I was amazed to find out that he was a Christian, as I had never known it and reading what he said also gave me a whole different view on the issue of slavery as well. It seems he thought that slavery was something that eventually would right itself due to the hearts and minds of men being changed by God, and that it was happening slowly and it seems he wanted to let God work His saving Grace.
Here's the link:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Lee on Slavery.htm
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 12:35PM
Sorry, I can't get the specific link to copy correctly. The website is Sonofthesouth.net. I wanted to copy his comments here though since we're on the topic of slavery for the benefit of those reading who may have thought like I did through being taught incorrectly in school, that Gen. Lee was "the bad guy." There were righteous men on both sides and God was dealing with them on the issue, and Lee's comments I think reflect this and what an awesome man he was!
This letter was written by Lee in response to a speech given by then President Pierce.
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
aware| 3.28.10 @ 1:27PM
Margie, this is an excellent example of why Lee, with the exception of Washington, was probably one of the finest Americans who ever lived. He was rare because, as a contemporary put it, he is exactly what he appears to be. He exhibited his faith in circumstances few of us can even imagine. And he paid the price too.
"I am just a miserable sinner trusting in Christ alone...." Lee
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 1:59PM
aware,
It's beautiful. Praise God. I couldn't agree more about Washington. There was a book reading on Christian radio recently that included some of his actions and behavior and attitude and I was brought to tears. I hope I make it to Heaven because these are some of the men I cannot wait to see! I was just discussing all of this with my husband who actually remembers his History and has an excellent head on his shoulders :^). He was telling me about how the Democrat party split into the southern & northern and then there was the Republican party and it reminds me of how the Repubs are splitting. I don't want that to happen. I'm hoping we can get back to our roots and keep it together.
aware| 3.28.10 @ 2:58PM
Me too, Margie.
But we must confront the central failure of modern conservatism and that is it as not given us smaller government in spite of opportunities to do so, in my opinion. We must find out why and correct this cause it is one of the central promises of conservatism. Then we can move out and crush the collectivists and their monster State.
Please be patient with we who are labeled libertarian(little "L") we only long for the days of a true republic with a government whose job was to PROTECT our liberties, not steal them.
I think you care as much as I about our freedom and we should all be wary as to the many ways those are taken from us. I'm prepared to trust the next guy with as much liberty as I demand for myself, even if some abuse the gift.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 3:15PM
Amen to that, aware.
I Perhaps I am a libertarian at heart? What is the difference between conservatism and libertarianism? If conservatives want the same things? From what I gather Libertarians (big L) have a certain platform that I cannot agree to. That being a platform that includes non-interventionism. But if one says they are libertarian (small l) isn't that different form that platform and party?
Or do small l libertarians agree with that?
aware| 3.28.10 @ 4:10PM
Pay no attention to the Libertarian Party, they have all the cohesion of a bag full of cats, and give us a bad name. Pathetic.
It is better to work through the Republican party at this point, for better or worse. But the big government Repugs must go.
Non interventionism does not mean anti military or weak defense. Nor does it mean we don't do some serious mashing if we are attacked. But it does mean a neutral stance and not fighting other people's wars for them. Or being dragged into them through treaties. Our interests should be narrowly defined as OURS.
We have laid trip wires all over the world that could easily have us in a war that is not in our interests. I think we should mind our own business and kick the hell out of any that won't let us do it.
While I am patriotic, I am not a nationalist.(the difference being a patriot KNOWS his country is the best in the world, the nationalist wants to prove it by kicking everybody's ass till THEY admit it)
The way things are now one has to wonder how the world made it long enough for us to "take over" as policeman, food supplier, arbiter, nanny, hospital, peacemaker, defender, and moneybags.
And many that receive these benefits would cut our throats for our trouble at the first chance they get. Like Japan giving us back our scrap metal at Pearl Harbor.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 5:25PM
Hi aware,
To add to what my husband just said (victor), I also had this thought as to your comment about "confronting the central failure of modern conservatism and that it hasn't given us a smaller gov."
My thought about that is how now we have a Leviathan on our hands. And I wonder if it's not too late to scale it back minus a physical revolution! This is where we have to use our reason and realize that we can't just snap our fingers and change things and that short of that physical revolution what we have to do is (like Rush said) hound the Democrats out of office!
We have an imperfect world filled with imperfect people (especially me, lol), and an imperfect candidate for office will be nominated amongst us imperfects, but still, an imperfect Republican is still by far better than the imperfect Democrat!
Now I will wait for my usual friends to accuse me of being too simplistic and brain-addled :^) but in truth isn't this what we must do?
Nominate conservatives to run in the Republican party, back them financially the best we can, spread the word about them, and pray God has continued mercy on our great republic.
In that I know we can agree.
As for non-interventionism we will have to disagree. In a perfect world, yes, but my opinion is that we live in such a huge complicated world that that would be impossible to maintain. Though I certainly wish it could be that way!
Thom| 3.28.10 @ 5:54PM
"Pay no attention to the Libertarian Party, they have all the cohesion of a bag full of cats, and give us a bad name."
I'm glad at least one other person figured that out beside me.
Thorvald| 3.28.10 @ 9:44PM
Your average libertarian just wants to smoke pot or do mescaline (or w/e). They may want to abort their girlfriend's baby because they'll never be sure it's theirs. Oh yeah, they don't like taxes: if they didn't have to pay taxes they could buy more drugs and pay for more girlfriends.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 10:42PM
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, burned it, left it in the ashes and walked away, by God's Grace. In my youth. Those days are long, long gone. Thankfully!
You grow up, become a conservative, and life is good.
Now~how to get the Leviathan off our backs!
victor| 3.28.10 @ 4:27PM
aware:
"But we must confront the central failure of modern conservatism and that is it as not given us smaller government in spite of opportunities to do so, in my opinion."
That is not the fault of Conservativism, but of the men who cliam to be.
If you listen to Rush, you know that he is always rankling the Rockefeller Republicans who always tell him that it is he who the problem.
New Jersey is lousy with the Striped Pants, Country Club Republicans and I voted for one such one in 93 and 97 and was severely disappointed. We had a great candidate in Bret Schundler in 2001 and Steve Lonegan in 2005, but the Rock/Reps stabbed them in the back by shunning them.
I thought the current guv'nor was the same, but I have been most pleasantly surprised.
Chris Christie is not governing as a moderate, but as a Conservative. He even brought in Bret Schundler as Education Commissioner.
Lonegan cannot be far behind.
Viva La Revolution!
Repeal the Bill!
Repeal the Democrats!
A November to Remember!
aware| 3.28.10 @ 5:37PM
"Striped Pants, Country Club Republicans".....THAT"S funny!Haw...haw
Oh yeah, I've traced this back to the infiltration of the Republican/Right by the Irving Kristolites who were driven from the "big tent" of the Left cause of their anti-communist heresy in the middle of the 20th century.
They are easily identified by their love of big government, as long as it's doing the "right things", but quickly become indignant when people other than them use it for the "wrong things".
They pretend to be Right, but really are Left, so they vote like "moderates" to do their part in advancing the Statist agenda, while at the same time totally confusing many people as to what the original meaning to words like liberal and conservative even is.
We could name names, but this is an accurate enough generalization for identification purposes.
Tim| 3.28.10 @ 6:36AM
We grasp the fact that you're a liberal apologist ,who can't grasp the fact that ,as American Freemen ,we have a right and duty to take our country back from those,who are attempting to place us in debt slavery .
We,Tea Party Rebels have been provoked into escalating rebellion and are on the march to Washington.D.C.
Intervenor| 3.28.10 @ 1:27PM
The disingenuous claim that there is no such thing as neo-Confederates has been ably refuted by the increasing number of neo-Confederates yammering away on this thread. Yammering is the one thing they do ably.
Here in the real world, the United States of America in 2010, the weekend has produced considerable intelligent discussion about how the disruptive tea party movement hails back to other efforts to limit democracy, including Southern secession and opposition to the civil rights movement and desegregation. Perhaps most accessible is Colbert King's piece at the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....35_pf.html
For people interested in the methodology of the neo-Confederate movement, I can confirm that making up their own 'facts,' as you see demonstrated here, is the norm. For example, false claims that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were not slaveowners, that slavery was good for Africans, that blacks fought to remain enslaved, etc., are typical. The fact the claims are easily proven false has no effect on the neo-Confederates. Reality frightens and angers them, so they flee from it.
victor| 3.28.10 @ 2:34PM
intervenor:
"The fact the claims are easily proven false has no effect on the Liberals. Reality frightens and angers them, so they flee from it."
"how the disruptive tea party movement hails back to other efforts to limit democracy,"
The only thing we want to limit is the government's power and those who believe in government uber alles.
"including Southern secession"
No one is talking "secession", but there are over 30 states and a dozen Attorneys-Generals that ARE talking about invoking the TENTH AMENDMENT and not yielding to the all-encroaching power and scope of the Federal Government.
"and opposition to the civil rights movement"
You mean the Special Rights Movement that would give those "Special Rights" to ILLEGALS, PERVERTS and those who want to promote IMMORAL lifestyles?
And what about giving "Special Rights" to Abortionists, eh?
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Lee on Slavery.htm
victor| 3.28.10 @ 3:17PM
Pardon the incomplete link that my wife used as I was also trying to use the page on Robert E Lee to highlight the fact that Lee was against slavery and freed the slaves he owned ten years before the war.
Lee fought for Virginia as he was a son of the South and he was not fighting for the Confederacy, but for Virginia.
He was an American who was fighting for his own state and not for the Federal Government.
The fight was between the States of the South and the Federal Union.
He was not fighting to take over Washington, but to ensure that the southern states maintained their sovereignty.
I was trying to illustrate the fact that the libs in the shape of Intervenor and Lib Reader only have assertions with no facts.
Lee's statement in 1856 and 1876 both illustrate his thoughts on slavery and that he thought it would die out and he was glad that it did, even though we had to fight a war to do it.
As for secession, if you ask the average Tea Party member, they would tell you "Secession?" Yes, let the Federal Government secede from our lives as the Constitution directs it to.
That is why the states and Attorneys-General are fighting to invoke the Tenth Amendment and restrict the Federal Government to it duly enumerated powers.
aware| 3.28.10 @ 3:23PM
I gotta go with JimP here....Inventor of Fiction is an SPLC hack.
No one but "it" claimed Lee and Davis were not slave owners but just that they hated slavery.
True history is an account of human affairs and as such, messy with few things as settled as we would like.
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 1:55PM
Frederick Douglas reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”
http://www.dixiescv.org/fact_did-blacks-serve.html
Don't take my or SCV's word for it though. Do your own research, as I have. What you will find is a reality very different from the myths you've been taught about Lincoln, his war, and the balogna that Intervenor keeps slicing and trying to feed people here.
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 2:07PM
It certainly is bologna. And thanks for the link!
"The disruptive tea parties." In truth Obama's disruptive Socialist policies are ripping apart this country and so just the opposite of what he says is true. The tea parties are the most calm (in spite of our outrage), well organized and peaceful protests that this country has ever seen.
The liars on the Left just can't stand it and so they have to lie. Typical. Their mantra: When all else fails: cry racist!
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 2:24PM
And two more since the site will only accept two at a time.
http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/
http://www.revisionisthistory......rates.html
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 2:25PM
And another. This one is really interesting, IMO.
http://www.revisionisthistory......rates.html
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 2:23PM
Margie,
Here are a few more links to serve as good starting points for further research. I encourage anyone, especially people with the point of view of Intervenor, to use these as starting points only. Genuine historical research means verifying sources, checking and rechecking again. I know, from personal experience, that when people actually do the research they are going to be surprised to find that the truth is different than what we've been taught in public school and 99% of college classes.
It is interesting and revealing also that a discussion about history and an historical figure turned into a current political debate for Interloper. This is a classic Stalinist Agit-Prop 101 technique. Intervenor is here, in part, because if the Confederate States were correct about States' rights (leaving the issue of slavery aside) it is a direct threat to Federal hegemony and the leftists don't want that. Therefore they must be totally demonized and discredited along with anyone who questions any part of the 'Official History'.
Here are the links:
http://www.petersburgexpress.c.....k-CSA.html
http://www.stonewallbrigade.co.....nfeds.html
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 3:57PM
Well Jim P. thanks for the links and info. I am still reading here and how cool that after a bit of butting of heads I find you to be quite the amiable chap not to mention like a walking encyclopedia!
I bet John II who is a college professor or teacher, and regular poster here could add a wealth of info. too if he were to stop by. And Grzmlyk too, I think this thread could go on for decades!
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 4:27PM
Careful, Margie, you'll ruin my reputation. Also, I honestly meant no harm when I was needling you the other day. I hope you will accept my apology. Some days, the Devil gets the better of me. Mea maxima culpa.
Check out Slavenorth.com too if you didn't see my previous reference. This is a good one.
Talk to you later.
Best regards,
JimP
Margie| 3.28.10 @ 5:03PM
I feel the same way, mea maxima culpa. Appology accepted. Please accept mine.
~God bless.
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 6:30PM
Accepted without hesitation, but not necessary. Basically, I started it IMO. Thank you for the Blessing. God bless you too, Margie.
'See' you soon.
Thom| 3.28.10 @ 6:37PM
The argument put forth by Lincoln worshipers typically starts out with either the South illegally succeeded (not true) or they were a rebellion (not true). Both provable one by reading the Constitution and the other with a little common sense like, they were outnumbered 3 to 1 and had a whole lot less per capita wealth and no meaningful industrial capacity upon which to sustain a “rebellion”. When that fails then the “moral” argument comes into play which conveniently overlooks the institution of slavery being legal since the beginning of recorded time which includes both the Greek and Roman Empires, nearly 1900 years after Christianity arrived on the scene, 168 years before the Constitution had been birthed as Colonies and about 74 years after it was birthed as “states”. What exactly was the “moral” imperative for ending slavery in the South only by force of arms at that moment in time? Oh, I forgot Lincoln the 1st needed a legacy of small and limited government, etc……. or to use modern sound bite construction “I won”. John Brown’s murderous raids were condemned by "moderates" on both sides and paid for his crusade with his life and few years later 618,000 lay dead all across parts of the South doing exactly the same thing he was doing. The moral argument looks a little lame here so that leaves the all time fall back, “to save the Union”. I believe Lee or someone spoke to the concept of a Union being held together at the point of a sword not being a union at all. The broad view of just about any historical event like this tends to not fit in a simplistic slam dunk cause and effect clef note as some depend on but it still merits pointing out that ending slavery as the Northern radicals of the time demanded would have destroyed the economy of the South and resulted in a pretty steep per capita loss of wealth or to put it simply ruin. The North was quiet happy with that outcome else they would have addressed the economic problem here at some length. From the Southern good old boy view, including those poor southern whites who had not direct or indirect benefit from slavery at all, if the North could destroy the rich plantation owners wealth they could certainly destroy their's hence when you set out to steal, diminish or destroy someone’s wealth you might expect they will fight you. This story repeats throughout history as those who follow the “might makes right” approach to things find themselves in over their head with inferior numbers who have a bit more motivation to fight than those fresh immigrants off the ships in New York Harbor. Some of those immigrants fought for the South because they had seen how this con game worked in England countless times before.
It is never as simple as some want it to be.
JimP| 3.28.10 @ 8:19PM
Thom:
True so true and so humorously put.
One thing that, just for me personally, I continue to find puzzling is the emotional investment that so many people have in the idea of 'Saint Abraham', 'friend of the slaves'. Why do they give a darn 145+ years after the end of the war and 45+ years after the success of the Civil Rights movement. In my in person experience with folks like that they don't know squat about American history, never heard of Antietam/Sharpsburg, for example, or any other battle of the war except Gettysburg of which they know no details at all, and they can't explain why Washington is The Father of our country. But man oh man, are they ALL about Abe. Talk about irrational emotional investment in something. Abe MUST be a saint, and if you say otherwise, they are ready to fight, literally in some cases. Of course they know no more about Abe than they do about Gettysburg. In my unprofessional opinion I suspect there is some kind of white guilt to it. If they believe the Lincoln myth it makes them better people in their minds. To me it's just bizarre.
Thanks for all your comments. They were very interesting and really added to the discussion.
Talk to you again soon. Probably on another Lincoln blog column here.
Take care,
JimP
Thom| 3.28.10 @ 8:55PM
JimP, I’ve never heard a “black” person every mention the name of Abraham Lincoln in any shape, form or fashion and the ancestors of the slaves his crusade “freed” vote 94 to 6 against the same Republican Party that supposedly set them “free”. I don’t think the modern day “black community” has any attachment to Lincoln in the slightest contrary to the author’s beliefs it is connected to Black History Month and has no investment in having any understanding of the gift he gave their ancestors and have thrown out the window for decades. It also goes without saying the modern day (R)epublican Party isn’t the party of Lincoln since there was nothing about Lincoln that is in line with limited government. To throw more marbles on the floor, if the three left coast States and the Northeast Corridor were to announce they were going to “succeed” from the Union on Monday and join Canada who would give a rat’s ass? Would the Republican Party join a war to “save the Union”? Would King Obama fight a war to keep the South and West from Succeeding? Of course, he already has the slave vote. I give Lincoln full faith and credit for being the only American President so far that had the courage to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans over to feed a guilt trip. There are many striking similarities between King Obama and Lincoln, none of them good for a “republic”.
zentaizentai | 3.28.10 @ 9:35PM
Please trust us. Choose us! spandex zentai
We will bring you more exciting zentai unitard and better service.
Thorvald| 3.28.10 @ 9:36PM
The Lincoln do-over is SO easy to imagine!
1. All slaves would be purchased from their owner at a fmv, then freed.
2. All African-born former slaves would be transported to the land of their birth, and compensated at a typical 19th-cent. rate for their years of servitude.
3. All native-born former slaves would be compensated at a slightly lower rate than the African-born slaves, and offered the option of transportation to Africa.
There weren't that many slaves. 19th century domestic and agricultural labor was pretty cheap. Sure, slaves were very expensive, but the total I guess would still be less than even just rebuilding Atlanta. The Union would still be about laws and not justice. The Republican Party would not be saddles with the legacy of worst Statist act by an American President since President Washington ordered troops to fire on citizens during the Whiskey Rebellion.
Jordan| 3.29.10 @ 10:36PM
If you want to truly understand Lincoln's greatness (and the coherence of his politics and those of the founders) read anything about Lincoln written by Harry Jaffa. Especially read the old debates between Jaffa and Frank Meyers and Wilmore Kendall. Lincoln is the true philosophical heir of the founders, the savior of the Union the Constitution and the Declaration---a true defender of liberty, properly understood as a natural right and not merely a creature of positive law.
enigma | 3.30.10 @ 11:14AM
ANGELs or AGEs...? that famous quote!
thah veep is a mason in april of 1865.
the sec' of war said 'angels' because
of our victorian divine nature.
good ole andy is a freemason.
sec. stanton did not say "ages"
JimP| 3.30.10 @ 12:25PM
Jaffa was a fan of highly centralized government and a fierce opponent of state sovereignty.
“Jaffa has spent a lifetime expounding upon Lincoln’s rendition of constitutional history that was first invented by Joseph Story and Daniel Webster—that the Union preceded the states, as opposed to the view (the correct one, in my opinion) that the sovereign states formed the government as their agent by adopting the Constitution. (St. George Tucker’sView of the Constitution of the United States is the best exposition of the latter view; Jaffa’s book is the best of the former view).”
Thomas DiLorenzo
5/10/02
The Independent Institute
Therefore, when it comes to Jaffa, caveat emptor. We all see and are living with the results of centralized government and its effects on liberty.
iPad to iTunes Transfer | 11.21.10 @ 12:21AM
iPad to iTunes Transfer ia an all-in-one ipad transfer tool. United four tools into one, this iPad to iTunes Transfer can be considerred as the best assistant when dealing with iPad stuffs. As an iPad uer, you can use iPad to iTunes Transfer as a iPad to Computer Transfer, Computer to iPad Transfer, iPad Converter, DVD to iPad Transfer, even it can be used as a hard drive to manage iPad files in good order.