Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2014, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,525,564 times
Reputation: 1938

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
A citation would be nice.

Now I don't do summaries, and to my knowledge this was the critical letter of Lincoln's position in 1862 in toto.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

.
Thank you for this important letter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2014, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,525,564 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
Sherman was right of course. The thing was the whole war was about cultural differences. The North was moving forward with industry, and modern labor practices. Immigrants cost them little to employ and if they couldn't work someone was next in line. There was no overhead for children and sick or old people. They used the system they did because it was cheaper. The south was culturally tied to its slaves, because they were the defination of wealth. Within themselves both functioned. In a war, the south was already behind with its limited rescourses to move men and supplies.

People start wars not based on a good analysis of the outcome but the moment, and because they see things through the filter of their world. To southerners all that Sherman mentioned didn't matter. To the north it was assumed it would be fast and easy. Both were wrong.

If the combatents in a war could take a time trip forward and see what the ultimate outcome would be, I wonder how many wars would be called off.
I wish people could be made to see the horror of war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,525,564 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd View Post
Why does the South want to secede?
How about a Federal Gov out of whack with the common hard working American. How about the Feds forcing their will and laws on states that don't want or don't need their help or advice. Mass. had a good health care system that had 85% of people happy and insured then Obama care came along and blew it up.
I think there are many states that have had it with the Feds and would like to secede not just the South.

I think Obama Care was based on the health care system Romney put in place it doesn't seem to be as good though. I couldn't understand how Romney spent his entire campaign denying the good he had done in Mass and now claims Romney Care was a failure. I have heard that Mass has the best healthcare and the best hospitals in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 05:21 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,894,826 times
Reputation: 15037
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Yes. And where does this contradict my own position at all? In fact, it backs up mine that the old mantra of the war being fought over slavery was just a latter day cover.
I guess history is too complex for you because you seem to believe that historical events have a singular reason or that those reasons remain incapsulated in amber. For Lincoln the war was not a war to end slavery but to preserve the union and most importantly to crush a violent rebellion against the national government. But even for me to argue that point ignores Lincoln's personal evolution over the issue of slavery (amongst others) and the realization that slavery was an essential essential component of the war as Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address :
"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
The "acceptance" of the war for the express purpose of preserving the union does not disguise the fact that the others who clearly saw that the cause of the war was slavery that the war should also be a tool destroy it. That was no Lincoln's view until after two years of cajoling by abolitionist like Fredrick Douglas. It was during that time that Lincoln evolved to see the war for what it was. Speaking stated as much in his second Inaugural
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Yet four years later after defeating Gen George McClellan who has the Democratic candidate would have abandoned not only the cause of union but abolition as well, the fully evolved Abraham Lincoln invokes his god by pointing out that the war to end a rebellion became payment for a great sin committed:
It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
Personally, I have never argued nor would argue the mythology that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but there is no doubt that the war was fought to preserve it.

Quote:
Which in turn asks the question of did Lincoln choose to use military force to coerce the Southern states back into a union they no longer wanted to be part of?
Lincoln didn't choose to use force to "coerce" the south to rejoin the union, in point of fact was dead and buried before any former state would be re-admitted into the union. What Lincoln chose to do was to end an rebellion against the government, which was his constitutional duty.

Quote:
"Preserving the Union" sounds -- by arguing from result -- a very noble undertaking -- far as that goes --Southerners have always been the most traditionally patriotic of all -- but it still begs the question of why the Lincoln administration invaded the South to begin with?
How does a nation invade itself?

Quote:
Or, better put, from your point of view/vision, give an historical justification -- as you see it -- for any other reason to expend the lives of at least a couple of hundred thousand northern men for something that was never necessary.
Since when is an existential principle judged by the body count needed to defend it? In 1864 the American people came to the conclusion that the the body count, as high as it was after the battles of Shiloh, Chancellorsville, Anthem, and Gettysburg, was still well worth the existential principle of union.

Quote:
Further, to provoke an incident that -- as Lincoln pretty much said himself, was just a total fabrication for public opinion purposes...
Well this is where the conversation ends. I've read your deflections, emoticons and most fundamentally your numerous posts without even a hint of support or citation. This is the history forum and the history forum requires a higher level of debate. Here we can disagree about the what the facts mean but we at least start with facts. You have asked questions in the past, when I have countered them you move on to more of your revisionist claptrap.

You state that the war was to preserve Union taxes, we cite tax revenue for the prewar years which clearly rebut your claim and fail to substantiate your claim.

You state that Lincoln stated to Horace Greeley that that the war was about taxes, I show you the correspondence written by Lincoln to Greeley with not a mention of taxes and you move on to another argument. We demolish that one and find ourselves right back were we started, Lincoln "provoked the firing on Ft. Sumpter" and again you fail to produce a single iota of evidence.

Debating with you is pointless...

Welcome to my ignore list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
9,429 posts, read 10,700,516 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
I wish people could be made to see the horror of war.

Ten thousand years of human history and no one has gotten this point yet. War after war, and they get worse with technological advancement, yet war is still common. As we speak, Mr Putin is fixin to start a big one in eastern Europe. Reality is unfortunately that the only way to stop a tyrant is with war, human nature will never allow war to be done away with. It is a necessary evil, lest we all become slaves to the strongest, meanest and toughest on this planet. War is a better option that that IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 12:07 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,505,907 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
=Larry Caldwell;34626709]I find it entertaining that the preamble of the confederate constitution mentions god, which was totally lacking from the US constitution. The sentiment for a theocracy was already rampant in the South 150 years ago. We're still dealing with that today.
LOL. I was? You evidently don't have much beyond your own biases to define what a true theocracy is.

But whatever...here is the wording from the original Declaration of Independence:

*********************************************

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;

********************************************

Now then? Would you call this a theocracy as well...? LOL A problem with it? Just curious...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 02:36 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,505,907 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
=ovcatto;34645996]I guess history is too complex for you because you seem to believe that historical events have a singular reason or that those reasons remain incapsulated in amber.
Are you for real? Or just getting frustrated? (and yes, the amber metaphor does not fly over my head!...only that it is misapplied on your part). Yeah, history was only my double-major, so I know nothing about it and the subject is "too complex" for me. Sure, whatever....

Of course, that doesn't make me any more knowledgeable that anyone else at all...only to say that, c'mon. Let's the two of us try to be above getting into getting into the proverbial "pi$$ing contest, ok?

Now then, would you like to back up on the posts and see which one of us first brought up the fact that history is not an objective subject? It was not you.

Quote:
For Lincoln the war was not a war to end slavery but to preserve the union and most importantly to crush a violent rebellion against the national government.
.

WHAT rebellion??? You never answer/answered this. The Southern states had no plans nor desire at all to invade the northern states (which kept the name united States -- lower caps intentional, see above original text of the DOI -- only by default). No desire at all to overthrow the government of the nation of which they were formerly part.

So what were they violently rebelling against? You keep tossing this out...but never really explain it.

Quote:
But even for me to argue that point ignores Lincoln's personal evolution over the issue of slavery (amongst others) and the realization that slavery was an essential essential component of the war as Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address :
And? How many -- South or North -- did not have an "evolution" as to feelings about slavery? The general feeling in the South up until around 1830 or so was that it was a "necessary evil" which would -- and needed to be -- gradually abolished. It was only after certain northern abolitionists (many of whom had come from families which had made a fortune on the northern slave trade itself), that Southerners began to adopt a more defensive posture. Because they (as history has proven), that it was only an hypocritical excuse to use it as for a larger and later attack upon the whole principal of federalism. It is no accident that Karl Marx praised Lincoln in lots of ways (which of course, I realize you probably find complimentary...which is fine, far as that goes.)

Quote:
The "acceptance" of the war for the express purpose of preserving the union does not disguise the fact that the others who clearly saw that the cause of the war was slavery that the war should also be a tool destroy it. That was no Lincoln's view until after two years of cajoling by abolitionist like Fredrick Douglas. It was during that time that Lincoln evolved to see the war for what it was. Speaking stated as much in his second Inaugural. Yet four years later after defeating Gen George McClellan who has the Democratic candidate would have abandoned not only the cause of union but abolition as well, the fully evolved Abraham Lincoln invokes his god by pointing out that the war to end a rebellion became payment for a great sin committed:
Lincoln defeated McClellan mostly for two reasons: The victory in Georgia (a war crime as appalling as any in history), and voter fraud. See the facts. Now, was this Lincoln you are talking about the same one who wanted to ship all the blacks back to Africa? And the one who also wanted the western territories to be the domain of only "free white people." That is your hero?

Quote:
Personally, I have never argued nor would argue the mythology that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but there is no doubt that the war was fought to preserve it.
LOL Then why did only four states mention it as a cause for secession??? And all of those list other causes as well? Also, and as asked earlier in a post, since when did the northern states time-clock become the moral standard as to historical judgments?

Quote:
Lincoln didn't choose to use force to "coerce" the south to rejoin the union, in point of fact was dead and buried before any former state would be re-admitted into the union. What Lincoln chose to do was to end an rebellion against the government, which was his constitutional duty. How does a nation invade itself?
It can't. The northern states (again, which kept the name united states by default), invaded another nation which had peaceably seceded. Did the English invade another nation after the DOI?

Quote:
Since when is an existential principle judged by the body count needed to defend it? In 1864 the American people came to the conclusion that the the body count, as high as it was after the battles of Shiloh, Chancellorsville, Anthem, and Gettysburg, was still well worth the existential principle of union.
Go back. A union is not a union at all if it must be held together by force. Or is it? An empire is...but a union is not.

Quote:
You state that Lincoln stated to Horace Greeley that that the war was about taxes, I show you the correspondence written by Lincoln to Greeley with not a mention of taxes and you move on to another argument. We demolish that one and find ourselves right back were we started, Lincoln "provoked the firing on Ft. Sumpter" and again you fail to produce a single iota of evidence.
How about his own words as concerns Ft. Sumter:

"Quite a few Northern newspapers recognized the game Lincoln was playing. On April 16, 1861 the Buffalo Daily Courier editorialized that “The affair at Fort Sumter . . has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified†(Howard Cecil Perkis, Northern Editorials on Secession). The New York Evening Day Book wrote on April 17, 1861, that the event at Fort Sumter was “a cunningly devised scheme†contrived “to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.†“Look at the facts,†the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861. “For three weeks the [Lincoln] administration newspapers have been assuring us that Ford Sumter would be abandoned,†but “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.†The Jersey City American Standard editorialized that “there is a madness and ruthlessness†in Lincoln’s behavior, concluding that Lincolns sending of ships to Charleston Harbor was “a pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.â€

After Fort Sumter, on May 1, 1861, Lincoln wrote to his naval commander, Captain Gustavus Fox, to say that “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country [i.e., a civil war] would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.â€

Quote:
Debating with you is pointless... Welcome to my ignore list.
ROFLMAO Oh, golly gee whiz. In turn, welcome to the company of that Tom whatzhis name 77. I don't blame you at all for ignoring me. If I could make no better case than you, and continually shifting each time you get your rear handed to you in a donkey BBQ, I would ignore too. Of course it is "pointless"...you can't argue...

Whatever, I am actually quite flattered to be on y'alls "ignore list." In any event, it is not important to me that I "convince" you of anything, but just to present the other side so that others might read and make up their own minds as to it all.

But as an afterthought? Since you mentioned Lincoln above, here is the one of Jefferson Davis when assuming presidency of the Confederacy. If you ignore me (like I care), then you will not see it...but others might. And no mention at all is made of slavery...only a desire for the South to be left alone and go in peace.

Oh, how horrid the thought, huh?

****************************

Inaugurual Address
as Provisional President of the Confederacy

[Montgomery, February 18, 1861 ]


GENTLEMEN OF THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:

Called to the difficult and responsible station of Chief Executive of the Provisional Government which you have instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned to me with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with a sustaining confidence in the wisdom of those who are to guide and to aid me in the administration of public affairs, and an abiding faith in the virtue and patriotism of the people.

Looking forward to the speedy establishment of a permanent government to take the place of this, and which by its greater moral and physical power will be better able to combat with the many difficulties which arise from the conflicting interests of separate nations, I enter upon the duties of the office to which I have been chosen with the hope that the beginning of our career as a Confederacy may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our enjoyment of the separate existence and independence which we have asserted, and, with the blessing of Providence, intend to maintain. Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established .

The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable; of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.

Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional duty, moved b! no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measures of defense which honor and security may require.

An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued. Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity, and to obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must he directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause.

As a consequence of our new condition and with a view to meet anticipated wants, it will be necessary to provide for the speedy and efficient organization of branches of the executive department, having special charge of foreign intercourse, finance, military affairs, and the postal service.

For purposes of defense, the Confederate States may, under ordinary circumstances, rely mainly upon their militia, but it is deemed advisable, in the present condition of affairs, that there should be a well-instructed and disciplined army, more numerous than would usually be required on a peace establishment. I also suggest that for the protection of our harbors and commerce on the high seas a navy adapted to those objects will be required. These necessities have doubtless engaged the attention of Congress.

With a Constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known intent, freed from the sectional conflicts which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare it is not unreasonable to expect that States from which we have recently parted may seek to unite their fortunes with ours under the government which we have instituted. For this your Constitution makes adequate provision; but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will of the people, a reunion with the States from which we have separated is neither practicable nor desirable. To increase the power, develop the resources, and promote the happiness of a confederacy, it is requisite that there should be so much of homogeneity that the welfare of every portion shall be the aim of the whole. Where this does not exist, antagonisms are engendered which must and should result in separation.

Actuated solely by the desire to preserve our own rights and promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others and followed by no domestic convulsion. Our industrial pursuits have received no check. The cultivation of our fields has progressed as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports and in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. This common interest of the producer and consumer can only be interrupted by an exterior force which should obstruct its transmission to foreign markets-a course of conduct which would be as unjust toward us as it would be detrimental to manufacturing and commercial interests abroad. Should reason guide the action of the Government from which we have separated, a policy so detrimental to the civilized world, the Northern States included, could not be dictated by even the strongest desire to inflict injury upon us; but otherwise a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our aggressors. In the meantime there will remain to us, besides the ordinary means before suggested, the well-known resources for retaliation upon the commerce of an enemy.

Experience in public stations, of subordinate grade to this which your kindness has conferred, has taught me that care and toil and disappointment are the price of official elevation. You will see many errors to forgive, many deficiencies to tolerate, but you shall not find in me either a want of zeal or fidelity to the cause that is to me highest in hope and of most enduring affection. Your generosity has bestowed upon me an undeserved distinction, one which I neither sought nor desired. Upon the continuance of that sentiment and upon your wisdom and patriotism I rely to direct and support me in the performance of the duty required at my hands.

We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system of our Government. The Constitution formed by our fathers is that of these Confederate States, in their exposition of it, and in the judicial construction it has received, we have a light which reveals its true meaning.

Thus instructed as to the just interpretation of the instrument, and ever remembering that all offices are but trusts held for the people, and that delegated powers are to be strictly construed, I will hope, by due diligence in the performance of my duties, though I may disappoint your expectations, yet to retain, when retiring, something of the good will and confidence which welcome my entrance into office.

It is joyous, in the midst of perilous times, to look around upon a people united in heart, where one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole-where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honor and right and liberty and equality. Obstacles may retard, they cannot long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice, and sustained by a virtuous people. Reverently let us invoke the God of our fathers to guide and protect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles which, by his blessing, they were able to vindicate, establish and transmit to their posterity, and with a continuance of His favor, ever gratefully acknowledged, we may hopefully look forward to success, to peace, and to prosperity.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 05:55 AM
 
868 posts, read 1,116,415 times
Reputation: 2047
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Personally, I have never argued nor would argue the mythology that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but there is no doubt that the war was fought to preserve it.
It was all about states's rights....not least of which was the right to own slaves

The confederacy will always be regarded as having been on the wrong side of history by the vast majority, and no amount of semantic or verbal gymnastic is ever going to change that

Oh! and I am no yankee btw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,525,564 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Ten thousand years of human history and no one has gotten this point yet. War after war, and they get worse with technological advancement, yet war is still common. As we speak, Mr Putin is fixin to start a big one in eastern Europe. Reality is unfortunately that the only way to stop a tyrant is with war, human nature will never allow war to be done away with. It is a necessary evil, lest we all become slaves to the strongest, meanest and toughest on this planet. War is a better option that that IMO.

Perhaps we can find ways to fight tyrants without violence? Or at least not as much violence. A tyrant has no real power if he can't get anyone to follow him or if his power is taken away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 09:17 AM
 
28,559 posts, read 18,560,412 times
Reputation: 30797
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Hold on there Hoss otherwise you make the same mistake that PBS did in making its series "The Abolitionist." The abolitionist movement was organized by a broad number of Americans who adhered to a number of different religions and some like Thomas Paine no religion at all, but more importantly statements like that erase the role of former slaves and free people of color who always played an important role in the founding of the abolitionist movement. To borrow a T.Thomas Fortune quote, to discuss the Abolition Movement without mention the role of African people is like "putting Hamlet on stage with Hamlet left out."
The man identified as the first American abolitionist is Roger Williams, who was a radical Puritan (and also the man who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state"). Williams also formed the first Baptist congregation in the US, and the American Baptist Convention was so staunchly anti-slavery that they didn't even permit their members to hire domestic servants. That's why southerners created the breakaway Southern Baptist Convention specifically to enable them to be slaveholding Baptists.

But it is true to say that those Union soldiers were, indeed, fighting to abolish slavery as a sin. You can see that in the letters still preserved that they wrote back home to their loved ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top