View single post by pender
 Posted: Sun Nov 13th, 2011 01:18 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark, that is a good answer. They had similar ideas, different dreams. One thing I have found is that my line of thinking on the subject is nothing new. In the New York Times on Dec. 4th 1861, a Mr. Weed gave three points on the crisis.

Mr. Weed has stated his opinion of the crisis thus: 1. There is imminent danger of a dissolution of the union. 2. The danger originated in the ambition and cupidity of men who desire a southern Despotism, and in the fanatic zeal of the northern Abolitionist, who seek the emancipation of slaves regardless of consequences. 3. The danger can only be averted by such moderation and forbearance as will draw out, strengthen and combine the union sentiment of the whole country.

Each of these statements will command general assent. The only question likely to arise relates to the practical measures by which the "moderation and forbearance" can be displayed. And while the S.C. convention was in session and before any state had seceded, and when it was doubted by many what such action would be taken, Mr. Greeley said,

"If it (the Declaration of Independence) justifies the secession from the British Empire of three million colonist in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of southerns from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not someone attempt to show wherein and why? For our own part, while we deny the right of slave-holders to hold slaves against the will of the latter, we cannot see how twenty millions of people can rightfully hold ten, or even five, in a detested Union with them by military force."

All content came from Slavery and States Rights speech of the Hon. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama. From the Richmond, VA. Dispatch, July 31, 1894.

I must say Mr. Greeley expresses my feelings on the subject clearly.

Also I wonder if Sherman's relationship to the people and students of L.S.U. is not he's reason for wanting to give an easy peace? Though many criticize him for acts done during the war, at the close of the war, he's easy peace policy (which he was criticized by northerners for) was one of the most lenient.

Pender

 

 

 

 Close Window