 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:02 pm |
|
21st Post |
TimK
Member
|
Okay - as lifl2003 pointed out, as far as I can tell it seems to be a geographical thing. But here's another question. It has been pointed out that Lincoln did whatever was necessary to keep the United States united - some legal, some not so much. Does the dislike of Lincoln come from the way he went about things, or from the fact that he refused secession? Does anybody still believe that after 150 years, two world wars, and several "conflicts", that two separate countries would be a good thing?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:32 pm |
|
22nd Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Texas Defender -
All valid points. Some I agree with, some I don't, but that's neither here or there.
The only point I have to comment on is your assertion to TimK: "You might not: "Be interested in starting a fight," but that is the inevitable result of starting a thread like this. "
If that in fact is true, then there's no point in having a discussion board. If adults cannot discuss without argument, then I'm outta here. I'll moderate - I won't baby-sit.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:46 pm |
|
23rd Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
Javal 1-
Now we are getting into definitions of words. What I meant by a: "fight" was a clash of ideas. I have strong opinions and others here do as well. The differences of opinions can create a clash without anyone having to engage in namecalling and other polemics. Thus the discussion board can survive very well.
I've been on the board for almost a year and a half, and while I might: "unload" on someone I strongly disagree with, I don't think that anyone can honestly accuse me of doing it in an uncivil manner.
Last edited on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:48 pm by Texas Defender
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 05:43 pm |
|
24th Post |
HankC
Member
|
Bama46 wrote: TimK
sorry, but Lincoln did not free one single slave....The 13th ammendment did that after he was dead. Andrew Johnson never gets the the credit he deserves... 
The Emancipation Proclimation exempted all slaves in lands controlled by the Union. The other lands were controlled by the Confederacy, a seperate country
which is pretty much what the war was all about, yes? at that time and not bound by any piece of paper eminating from the US. But the CSA, and it's defenders, wanted to be protected by a similar piece of paper, namely the the Constitution of the United States...
The EP was issued for 2 reasons...first in the hopes that there would be a slave uprising in the Confederacy...it did not happen
2nd to counter the pressure being put on France and England to recognize the CSA. .. That worked!
there are a few more reasons than that,. In fact, your first reason is difficult to find backing for. Of course, considering that about 250,000 former slaves were serving *against* the South by Appomattox, one could say that it *did* happen. Most southerners were so sure that a slave uprising would be a bloody calamity, the idea that slaves would seek *legal* means to combat slavery was unfathomable...
Joe asks who of Lincoln's opponents in the 1860 election could have done a better job of preserving the union and prosecuting the war...
Well, if we are going to "what if" then would the war even have been fought if Lincoln had not been elected?
It would have been fought later...Of course the South started taking federal property long before Lincoln's inauguration...
IMO Lincoln's greatness is largely hindsight
Must be true - in their foresight, most politicians and rivals thought he was an awful choice and a determination by the Radical Republicans to make him a Martyr and thus have a moral reason to do what they already planned to do which was to rape the south in what came to be called reconstruction.
Reconstruction was pretty mild until Johnson (who freed the slaves) overstepped *his* bounds. That is when the Radicals took over...
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
25th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Hank C,
I owuld like to respond to your post, if I could figure out what you were saying and how I could formulate an intelligent response..
As far as Johnson overstepping his bounds, I believe that action was to have the gall to believe he was actually the President of the Unites States.... IMO he never had a chance, the Radicals were gonna take over...
Ed
Last edited on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:13 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
26th Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
Hank C-
Lincoln's purpose in prosecuting the war was to preserve the Union. He himself said that freeing slaves where slavery existed was not his purpose- at least until 1863 when political considerations resulted in the EP.
The people in the south in 1860 and 1861 should have been protected by the US Constitution. I would maintain that by not forbidding secession, the Constitution allowed it. As you say, that disagreement was why the war was fought.
Your contention that: "250,000 former slaves served against the south" is not correct. There were maybe 200,000 total in USCT units. Perhaps half of them were former slaves.
UNITED STATES COLORED TROOPS
Since Mr. Lincoln refused to accept secession, there was a war. It didn't matter what the southerners did after announcing secession. What happened with federal property before and including Ft. Sumter only served Mr. Lincoln's purpose of inflaming public opinion in the north to prosecute the war against the southern states. But since Mr. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union by any means, war would have happened even if the southerners never touched any federal property.
Re: "President Johnson freeing the slaves," he really didn't. The ones in the south were at least legally freed by the EP. (Though most folks here in Texas didn't even know of it until June 19, 1865.). It was the 13th Amendment that freed the few slaves left in the north. As I recall, the last slaves to be freed were a few who were living in NJ on December 6, 1865.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:20 pm |
|
27th Post |
David White
Member
|
Bama:
Please provide a credible reference for your statement that Lincoln arrested the Maryland Legislature.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
28th Post |
ole
Member
|
Every board I've ever been on has whipped this horse over and over again. Always with the same unproven convictions that secession was legal; that Lincoln issued the EP hoping there would be a bloody slave rebellion; that Lincoln closed 300 newspapers and imprisoned 30,000 citizens; that Lincoln was as bad a racist as any southerner; yadayadayada.
It's always the same, so I suspect that there is, somewhere, a Confederate talking-points book. The points get hashed over; each side fails to convince the other and the thread dies away. A few months later it pops up again.
It goes away quicker when evidence in the form of citations are requested.
ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
29th Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
David White-
I don't think that Bama is maintaining that Mr. Lincoln PERSONALLY arrested members of the Maryland legislature, but his minions were authorized to do so, and did.
Perhaps this source (e pluribus unum) has some credibility:
The Provost-Marshal And The Citizen
Part of the way down, you can read: "Many members of the Maryland legislature were also arrested on and after September 20, 1861, and confined first in Ft. McHenry, then in Ft. Lafayette, and then finally in Ft. Warren, in order to forestall the passage of an act of secession. Some of these were soon released after taking an oath of allegiance, but several were confined for months."
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
30th Post |
ole
Member
|
Every board I've ever been on has whipped this horse over and over again. Always with the same unproven convictions that secession was legal; that Lincoln issued the EP hoping there would be a bloody slave rebellion; that Lincoln closed 300 newspapers and imprisoned 30,000 citizens; that Lincoln was as bad a racist as any southerner; yadayadayada.
It's always the same, so I suspect that there is, somewhere, a Confederate talking-points book. The points get hashed over; each side fails to convince the other and the thread dies away. A few months later it pops up again.
It goes away quicker when evidence in the form of citations are requested.
ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
31st Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Come on David...
I really do beielve any POTUS has better things to do than wander the streets of Baltimore with a fistfull of handcuffs. If, on the other hand, members of his administration, acting on the orders of his staff make the arrests, then it can be said that Lincoln had them arrested.
That is ALL I meant by that statement, if it was unclear, then I will try to do better next time.
It would be my hope that TD has put the citation request to bed.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:59 pm |
|
32nd Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
This was billed as a friendly discussion, I took it that way, and I believe others did as well. I have seen with other threads demands for references for each and every statement made. They always degenerate into electronic shouting matches and usually one or more participants leaves the board.
I will not participate in one of those!
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
33rd Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
Ole-
I have read over my Constitution many times and I can't find anything in the enumeration of the powers of the Federal Government that forbids states that voluntarily joined the Union to voluntarily withdraw from it. I myself have said that the issue is not mentioned at all. Therefore, there is no direct evidence to cite to you in either direction.
My reason for believing that secession was legal is simply that the 10th Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved for the States or the people.
You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation, but you cannot cite any evidence that would prove to me that the Constitution forbids secession.
What disturbs me is the apparent implication that since I believe that secession was legal that somehow I am a mindless puppet being manipulated by nefarious moderators of some: "Confederate Talking Points" website.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 07:17 pm |
|
34th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
"The points get hashed over; each side fails to convince the other and the thread dies away."
Exactly right Ole. And the point of this thread was to get varied views on opinions of Lincoln. All had a chance to express those views. Where the trouble always begins is once those views are stated, the posters feel the need to defend them to the death, back and forth, and over and over. State your views on Lincoln and be done with it. If your post is concise and well thought-out, no follow-up is needed. And hard feelings never have a chance to develop.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:07 pm |
|
35th Post |
HankC
Member
|
Texas Defender wrote: Hank C-
Lincoln's purpose in prosecuting the war was to preserve the Union. He himself said that freeing slaves where slavery existed was not his purpose- at least until 1863 when political considerations resulted in the EP. Correct, Political considerations drove the EP, along with the failure of the Confiscation acts. One of the greater considerations was that northern families were becoming disgusted with the death toll and the idea that slave property was still being protected. The idea that the purpose of the EP was to foment slave revolt is indefensible.
The people in the south in 1860 and 1861 should have been protected by the US Constitution.
How were they unprotected? And if you leave it's protection how can you claim it's protecetion? The purpose of my roof is to keep the rain off me but if I go out in the yard and get wet, can I blame my roof? I would maintain that by not forbidding secession, the Constitution allowed it. As you say, that disagreement was why the war was fought.
Your contention that: "250,000 former slaves served against the south" is not correct. There were maybe 200,000 total in USCT units. Perhaps half of them were former slaves. That places a pretty large percentage (maybe 75%) of all free northern blacks in the army. It is correct that some 200,000 served as official USCT; many others, perhaps more, served in non-combat roles as teamsters, laborers, cooks, etc...
UNITED STATES COLORED TROOPS
Since Mr. Lincoln refused to accept secession, there was a war. It didn't matter what the southerners did after announcing secession. What happened with federal property before and including Ft. Sumter only served Mr. Lincoln's purpose of inflaming public opinion in the north to prosecute the war against the southern states.
the north was plenty mad over the siezure of arsenals, mints, custom houses and post offices before Lincoln was inaugarated. Lincoln issued a number of warnings and made moves to protect the south from itself... But since Mr. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union by any means, war would have happened even if the southerners never touched any federal property. strictly an opinion...
Re: "President Johnson freeing the slaves," he really didn't. The ones in the south were at least legally freed by the EP. (Though most folks here in Texas didn't even know of it until June 19, 1865.). It was the 13th Amendment that freed the few slaves left in the north. As I recall, the last slaves to be freed were a few who were living in NJ on December 6, 1865.
correct... there were 4,000,000 slaves on December 6, 1860. After Lincoln's administration, on December 6, 1865 there were none...
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
36th Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
Hank C-
It seems that we have come to a general agreement on most of the issues discussed. I would agree, for example, that many thousands of blacks served the Union in non-combat roles such as teamsters, laborers, and cooks. I would point out that many thousands of blacks served the CSA in identical roles. Using the same standards, many thousands of blacks served against the north, for one reason or another.
The one issue that needs clarification is the Constitutional protection. What I maintained is that the southerners (The" Wayward Sisters") should have been allowed to voluntarily leave the Union. After that, no protection by the US Constitution would have been applicable.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
37th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
TD, little issue w/ what you posted.
As to what the CS did to its own people. Draconian draft/conscription, "for the duration" enlistments attached to 3 mos regiments, tithe, travel papers, suspension of Habeus Corpus on top of the general economic and logistical incompetence.
Neither side was what I would call angelic.
IMO any US citizen, especially a public servent, who makes efforts to kill US soldiers, give aid and comfort to those trying to kill them is guilty of treason. Just my opinion.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:55 pm |
|
38th Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
Johan-
I completely agree that neither side was angelic. The US Constitution was no protection for anyone north or south during the war. Both sides were draconian as the southerners took more desperate measures because of waning fortunes and the northerners sought to end the thing.
I also agree about US citizens. The salient question is whether or not the southerners were US citizens after they seceded. The official Union line was that they never left the Union (How they could announce an official blockade if that was the case is an interesting question). The southerners maintained that they were no longer US citizens.
This difference of opinion is why there was a war. Considering how things were in 1865, there has been a lot of healing in less than 150 years.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 09:02 pm |
|
39th Post |
HankC
Member
|
Texas Defender wrote: Hank C-
It seems that we have come to a general agreement on most of the issues discussed. I would agree, for example, that many thousands of blacks served the Union in non-combat roles such as teamsters, laborers, and cooks. I would point out that many thousands of blacks served the CSA in identical roles. Using the same standards, many thousands of blacks served against the north, for one reason or another. The standards were not *quite* the same. Very few in the south determined their type or term of service. I know of no northern blacks in service that escaped south to serve the CSA but many southern blacks that went tthe other way... HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 09:07 pm |
|
40th Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
Hank C-
When wars go badly, people on the side that is losing tend to want to escape from the unfavorable situation that they are in. Thus, as the war turned in the favor of the Union, more and more blacks ran away, and more and more Confederate soldiers deserted.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 10:53 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
|
|
