<< <i>In a few short years, you're going to wish the South had won the war! >>
Truly, though, the world is far better off. It's my opinion that if the South had won the war, we'd all be speaking German these days. (Think about it: instead of having a powerful U.S. to stand up against the Axis powers, we would have been two weaker and disunited nations.)
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>The South simply wanted to be left alone. It wasn't a civil was as that is when two sides fight for control of a single government.
The South simply seceded and that's why that war is properly called the "War of Northern Agression".
I'm continually amazed at the complete ignorance and misunderstanding of those times.
And no, it wasn't about slavery either, though that made a good excuse and a thinly veiled justification for the headlines at the time. Lincoln didn't free the slaves either. Another common misconception.
Study and learn. >>
According to Wikipedia (the true authority on all things scholarly ), the secession was about slavery: "Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences that led to control issues, states' rights and secession of seven states." The secession may not have been about slaves rights or emancipation but it was certainly about slavery and the balance of power in Congress with the admittance of each new state to the Union. To say the secession wasn't about slavery indicates that perhaps more study is needed
ddink << ddink seems to have forgotten another important fact >>
No, I certainly have not forgotten that. It was very kind of Johnston, but after what Sherman did, he certainly did not deserve it.
It was a very public act which was widely reported at the time. It had enormous symbolism, which was obvious to Johnston and clearly intended as such. ddink appears to think that he has the right to second-guess Joseph Johnston, whose integrity is a matter of record. There is a considerable difference between "kindness" and a well-publicized mark of public respect.
<< <i>According to Wikipedia (the true authority on all things scholarly ), the secession was about slavery: "Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences[14] that led to control issues, states' rights and secession of seven states." The secession may not have been about slaves rights or emancipation but it was certainly about slavery and the balance of power in Congress with the admittance of each new state to the Union. >>
The Civil War was my specialty in grad school, and I have come to agree completely with the above statement. The war was about states' rights and political power. But slavery was the trigger and the polarizing agent. In short: the war wasn't fought over slavery, but if slavery had not existed, I believe there would not have been a war. Both sections were different, but without a catalyst (particularly a powerfully emotional catalyst like slavery), I don't believe secession would have occured.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union.
The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
<< <i>I did see that they are thinking about a set featuring prominent leaders of the confederacy. The complete set will be known as a box of crackers. >>
<< <i>ddink appears to think that he has the right to second-guess Joseph Johnston >>
Nobody questions General Johnston's integrity. But for the record, yes, I believe that historians not only have the right, but the duty, to re-analyze and re-evaluate the historical record. Constantly asking new questions about old events is the entire reason that historians exist. Any graduate-level history program challenges its students to constantly question the past.
Boba: Lincoln was the original political spin doctor. He was a brilliant man and a consumate politician. Sometimes he almost sounds like he believed in what he was saying.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union.
The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." >>
<< <i>Thats why I am still hoarding confederate money. >>
I grew up in the South, had many teachers "of a certain age" whose fathers possibly and certainly grandfathers fought in the Woh-wa of Noh-thun Ag-gray-us-shun.
One in particular used to blurt out in a very Tourettes-y manner once in a while -- "Say-yiv yo Con-feder-ate muh-nih, the South will Raahhhhhhzzzz a-gay-un."
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>According to Wikipedia (the true authority on all things scholarly ), the secession was about slavery: "Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences[14] that led to control issues, states' rights and secession of seven states." The secession may not have been about slaves rights or emancipation but it was certainly about slavery and the balance of power in Congress with the admittance of each new state to the Union. >>
The Civil War was my specialty in grad school, and I have come to agree completely with the above statement. The war was about states' rights and political power. But slavery was the trigger and the polarizing agent. In short: the war wasn't fought over slavery, but if slavery had not existed, I believe there would not have been a war. Both sections were different, but without a catalyst (particularly a powerfully emotional catalyst like slavery), I don't believe secession would have occured. >>
Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. Wikipedia is written by regular folks with their own ax to grind and is often incorrect.
Only 2% of the population in the South actually owned slaves and of that, roughly 30% were black. Slavery was not a catalyst, but merely an excuse. When it comes to war crimes, those were nearly 100% commited by the North.
Popular history books and the truth don't always meet and this is an area where they rarely do.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. >>
Do you think the south would have seceded over taxation if slavery wasn't an issue? Slavery was such a big issue that Congress implemented multiple gag rules over the years leading up to secession, starting in 1836. Did Congress have to implement gag rules over taxation?
In my opinion, the best book about the reasons behind secession is: David Potter, The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861 (New York: Harper & Rowe, 1976)
<< <i>Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. >>
I disagree with this. Consider one example of slavery as a polarizing force:
When John Brown raided Harper's Ferry, intending to lead an armed slave rebellion (with the stated intention of murdering white masters in their beds), the North viewed him as a hero. Editorials praised him, songs were written about him (The most important of which was "John Brown's Body." Julia Ward Howe changed the lyrics to the song, and we now know her version as of the song as "Battle Hymn of the Republic").
So here's a man whose stated purpose was to murder Southerners in their sleep, and Northerners praise him for this???
This is just one of many ways in which slavery became a polarizing force. As a previous poster (Zoins, iirc) stated, secession also occured due to the South's loss of political power within the Union. For decades the South had parity with the North in the Senate, and usually had a Southerner or Southern sympathizer as president. As the Democrats disintegrated in the 1850s, the entire balance of power shifted to the North. The South was faced with a complete loss of political power. Congress could now pass any law they wanted, with or without Southern support. Nonetheless, a Democrat president could still veto any "anti-Southern" (read: anti-slavery) legislation. When a Republican (Lincoln) was elected, however, all checks against Northern political power were irrevocably lost.
P.S. If anyone is interested in looking more deeply into the reasons for Southern secession, PM me and I'd be happy to email you a paper I wrote in grad school, which outlines several different theories on the war's origins.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
He was extremely important in the development of our government. Key to the hobby, he established the US Mint.
A neat trick as Hanson died in 1783 and the Mint was established in 1792.
Denga >>
Technically, he authorized the establishment of the Mint.
"Resolved, That Congress approve of the establishment of a mint; and, that the Superintendent of Finance be, and hereby is directed to prepare and report to Congress a plan for establishing and conducting the same." (21 Feb 1782)
I disagree with this. Consider one example of slavery as a polarizing force: When John Brown raided Harper's Ferry, intending to lead an armed slave rebellion (with the stated intention of murdering white masters in their beds), the North viewed him as a hero. Editorials praised him, songs were written about him (The most important of which was "John Brown's Body." Julia Ward Howe changed the lyrics to the song, and we now know her version as of the song as "Battle Hymn of the Republic"). So here's a man whose stated purpose was to murder Southerners in their sleep, and Northerners praise him for this???
His enemies may have attributed such sentiments to him but I have in front of me the official report of the Senate investigating committee on the Harper's Ferry Raid and capture of John Brown. I cannot find the statement in this report – that Brown's purpose was to murder Southeners in their sleep – but I am sure that ddink will provide the proper citation.
I guess that makes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee war criminals too, since they occupied similar posts in the Confederacy. In fact, they should have surrendered in the very beginning in order to avoid all the killing, but they didn't. Put the blame on them.
What a moronic post, nothing personal intended.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Makes more sense to do a John Hanson dollar. He was extremely important in the development of our government. Key to the hobby, he established the US Mint.
A neat trick as Hanson died in 1783 and the Mint was established in 1792. Denga
Technically, he authorized the establishment of the Mint. "Resolved, That Congress approve of the establishment of a mint; and, that the Superintendent of Finance be, and hereby is directed to prepare and report to Congress a plan for establishing and conduct ing the same." (21 Feb 1782)
Unfortunately this authorization was a dead letter within a short time. In 1786 Congress again authorized a mint and this legislation lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry. In neither case was a mint "established."
I do agree, however, that the Presidents of Congress (i.e. prior to 1789) deserve to be on the coinage at some appropriate time.
<< <i>His enemies may have attributed such sentiments to him but I have in front of me the official report of the Senate investigating committee. I cannot find the statement in this report – that Brown's purpose was to murder Southeners in their sleep – but I am sure that ddink will provide the proper citation. >>
The man seized a federal armory and began passing out weapons to slaves. What do you think he intended to do, build a campfire and sing songs? In case deductive reasoning momentarily fails you, McPherson states that "He planned to seize the U. S. armory and arsenal there and distribute its arms to slaves as they joined up with him." (McPherson, 208). Also consult Potter's Impending Crisis, pages 375-385.
Nonetheless, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point (again). Southerners perceived John Brown as a murderer (which he was--he murdered five men with a broadsword at Pottawattamie Creek) and were infuriated to see Northerners hailing him as a hero. "The distinction between act and motive was lost on southern whites. They saw only that millions of Yankees seemed to approve of a murderer who had tried to set the slaves at their throats. This perception provoked a paroxysm of anger more intense than the original reaction to the raid."--James McPherson, Battlecry of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 210.
Whatever your opinion on John Brown, the aftermath of his raid caused a dramatic polarization between North and South, which helped lead to war.
P.S. Of course you don't find any such "statements" in the official Senate report. Have you ever heard of bias? Who controlled the Senate at this time? Not Southerners!
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< His enemies may have attributed such sentiments to him but I have in front of me the official report of the Senate investigating committee. I cannot find the statement in this report – that Brown's purpose was to murder Southeners in their sleep – but I am sure that ddink will provide the proper citation. >>
P.S. Of course you don't find any such "statements" in the official Senate report. Have you ever heard of bias? Who controlled the Senate at this time? Not Southerners!
An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry Raid. It is signed by three Senators: J.M. Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and Graham Fitch of Indiana. I was unaware that Mississippi and Virginia were not in the South until I read ddink's comments; on second thought I still am.
Considering that Mason was the Chairman of this committee and Jefferson Davis a member, one would hope that ddink is a little more accurate in his other statements. It is worth noting that Mason was from Virginia and that State was the primary target of Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry (then in Virginia).
<< <i>I guess that makes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee war criminals too, since they occupied similar posts in the Confederacy. >>
Isn't "war criminal" defined by a person's actions rather than their position within the government?
<< <i>In fact, they should have surrendered in the very beginning in order to avoid all the killing, but they didn't. Put the blame on them. >>
This has to be the most ridiculous comment I've come across in awhile. Is Poland at fault for all the deaths of Polish citizens in WWII because they did not immediately surrender when Hitler invaded?
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
"The man seized a federal armory and began passing out weapons to slaves"
is this a bad thing? If I was enslaved against my will and was given the opportunity kill the bastiges who were doing the enslaving. damn right im grabbing a gun.
Seems like there is an undercurrent to this thread that the wrong side won? and that slavery just aint so bad after all?
<< An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry Raid. It is signed by three Senators: J.M. Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and Graham Fitch of Indiana. I was unaware that Mississippi and Virginia were not in the South until I read ddink's comments; on second thought I still am.
Considering that Mason was the Chairman of this committee and Jefferson Davis a member, one would hope that ddink is a little more accurate in his other statements. It is worth noting that Mason was from Virginia and that State was the primary target of Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry (then in Virginia). >>
Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Northerners would not allow the conspirators to testify to the committee: "Sanborn refused a summons from the Mason committee and resisted an attempt by the sergeant at arms of the Senate to arrest him. Massachusetts Cheif Justice Lemuel Shaw voided the arrest warrant on a technicality." (McPherson 207).
<< <i>An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry >>
Actually, that document would have been considered a secondary source (at the time). It is merely a compilation of what evidence the committee was permitted to hear. Of course, the sources I'm citing are secondary sources as well (I don't have access to any of John Brown's diaries or other documents, perhaps you do?).
Regardless, you have completely missed my point: my original comment was on the effect of John Brown's raid. Believe what you will about a man who commits treason (by attacking a federal armory) and murders five people with a broadsword.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>and that slavery just aint so bad after all? >>
Strange, I haven't yet seen a post indicating support for slavery. What I have seen are numerous posts outlining various reasons for the Civil War. If you want to believe that the Civil War was all about slavery, and nothing else mattered, that's your perogative. But I think anyone in this thread would encourage you to actually read some books and do some research before coming to that conclusion.
<< <i>is this a bad thing? If I was enslaved against my will and was given the opportunity kill the bastiges who were doing the enslaving. damn right im grabbing a gun. >>
It's a fine line between treason and revolution; between murder and self-defense. Only you can judge if what John Brown did was right or wrong. I cannot make that judgement for you.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<<An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry Raid. It is signed by three Senators: J.M. Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and Graham Fitch of Indiana. I was unaware that Mississippi and Virginia were not in the South until I read ddink's comments; on second thought I still am.
Considering that Mason was the Chairman of this committee and Jefferson Davis a member, one would hope that ddink is a little more accurate in his other statements. It is worth noting that Mason was from Virginia and that State was the primary target of Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry (then in Virginia).>>
Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Northerners would not allow the conspirators to testify to the committee: "Sanborn refused a summons from the Mason committee and resisted an attempt by the sergeant at arms of the Senate to arrest him. Massachusetts Cheif Justice Lemuel Shaw voided the arrest warrant on a technicality." (McPherson 207).
Well, actually, the handful of others (all of whom are named in the report [Part I, page 19]) simply refused to appear or testify.
<< An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry >>
Actually, that document would have been considered a secondary source (at the time). It is merely a compilation of what evidence the committee was permitted to hear. Of course, the sources I'm citing are secondary sources as well (I don't have access to any of John Brown's diaries or other documents, perhaps you do?).
A nice evasion as anyone reading the 325-page official report can see for themselves that there was an overabundance of direct testimony, including discussions of Kansas and other sites associated with Brown. I am still, however, waiting for proof of the statement that Brown wanted to kill people sleeping in their beds.
Regardless, you have completely missed my point: my original comment was on the effect of John Brown's raid. Believe what you will about a man who commits treason (by attacking a federal armory) and murders five people with a broadsword.
Brown's Raid was not all that popular in the North despite what later commentators had to say. Those who say otherwise need to read Northern newspapers for the opening months of the war. John Brown and Harper's Ferry are virtually never mentioned in the interior but the preservation of the Union is. Revisionists can say anything they want; proof is quite another matter.
The war never ended. It took about 130 years but the South is now clearly winning. Political power has been centered in the south for the past 20 years. The Northern States of 1865 have become more insignificant as each year passes.
<< <i>The war never ended. It took about 130 years but the South is now clearly winning. Political power has been centered in the south for the past 20 years. The Northern States of 1865 have become more insignificant as each year passes. >>
We can see this affect our coinage as both commem topics issued this year are related to southern states, VA and AK
<< <i>Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. Wikipedia is written by regular folks with their own ax to grind and is often incorrect.
Only 2% of the population in the South actually owned slaves and of that, roughly 30% were black. Slavery was not a catalyst, but merely an excuse. When it comes to war crimes, those were nearly 100% commited by the North.
Popular history books and the truth don't always meet and this is an area where they rarely do.
<< <i> >>
Exactly. The northern states had slaves as well, but history doesn't acknowledge this, yet! It was all about $$ and the war was brought on by Lincoln and the New England cabal who wanted to profit from the export business of the South who were shipping cotton over seas. The northern industrialists wanted a piece of the action. Furthermore, slaves were brought into the country to northern states and sold by northerners to southern plantation owners. So don't tell me the war was about slavery. Go back and read your history, please.
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." PBShelley
I guess that makes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee war criminals too, since they occupied similar posts in the Confederacy. In fact, they should have surrendered in the very beginning in order to avoid all the killing, but they didn't. Put the blame on them.
What a moronic post, nothing personal intended. >>
You're off the mark about the history of the civil war.
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." PBShelley
<< <i>"The man seized a federal armory and began passing out weapons to slaves"
is this a bad thing? If I was enslaved against my will and was given the opportunity kill the bastiges who were doing the enslaving. damn right im grabbing a gun.
Seems like there is an undercurrent to this thread that the wrong side won? and that slavery just aint so bad after all? >>
Ignorance enslaves people. uh hum.
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." PBShelley
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union.
The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." >>
George W. couldnt have said it any better..... >>
Here's something about Lincoln you might not know. Look anew on your Lincoln Copper.
Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:
"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 from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." PBShelley
I had a long post about Why Secession Had Oh So Much To Do With Slavery Despite the Romantic But Delusional View of the South, but someone else did a far better job.
Re-edited because, well... I put words in the wrong order.
<< <i>The war never ended. It took about 130 years but the South is now clearly winning. Political power has been centered in the south for the past 20 years. The Northern States of 1865 have become more insignificant as each year passes. >>
We can see this affect our coinage as both commem topics issued this year are related to southern states, VA and AK >>
Interesting point, and this Northerner has to agree. However, I don't think that congress is less likely to issue a Jefferson Davis presidential dollar as they are to issue a Charles Mingus commemorative half dollar. Charles Mingus? He was a tempestuous jazz bass player/composer who wrote "Fables of Faubus" in the late '50s about the Little Rock, AR events commemorated on our coins this year. The design of school children walking into a building is much more politically acceptable than either Jefferson Davis' image or Mingus' lyrics about "the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd great American heel, Faubus": "Why's he so sick and ridiculous? 2,4,6,8, they brainwash and teach you hate." Mingus's song and the notoriety of the 1957 Little Rock incident has ruined Gov. Faubus' chance of appearing on a commemorative coin a la his predecessor Arkansas' Gov. Joesph T. Robinson or perhaps his successor Bill Clinton.
These are great subject matters for postage stamps. In fact there's already a 32 cent 1994 commemorative Mingus stamp. Will we ever see Jefferson Davis or Charles Mingus on a U.S. Coin? Not as long as they are authorized by politicians afraid of angering their constituents. Instead, we get Stephen Foster commemorating a non-event or Helen Keller epitomizing Alabama. If you want to celebrate controversial Americans, take your issues to USPS, not the committees that authorize U.S. mint issues. Congresscritters have to please too many people to celebrate the likes of Jefferson Davis, or Orval Faubus, as much as they may secretly admire them.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor
Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:
"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 from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Certainly the north had slaves and indentured servants. England sent an estimated 50,000 male prisoners to the american colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. There were also slaves from Africa. It was an accepted way of life all over the world until early in the 19th century. Crispus Attucks was the first black man killed in the Revolutionary War, and it certainly wasn't in the south. Columbus either killed off or sent into slavery almost the entire native population of the Dominican Republic and yet he is still honored here. History can be looked at in many different ways. While it's true that the victors write the history books, we can't know how events would have changed had the Union not been preserved. The thing that stands out most to me is that the Civil War was a terrible thing with a massive loss of life on both sides.
<< A nice evasion as anyone reading the 325-page official report can see for themselves that there was an overabundance of direct testimony, including discussions of Kansas and other sites associated with Brown. I am still, however, waiting for proof of the statement that Brown wanted to kill people sleeping in their beds. >>
And I'm still waiting on you to get the point.
<< Brown's Raid was not all that popular in the North despite what later commentators had to say. Those who say otherwise need to read Northern newspapers for the opening months of the war. John Brown and Harper's Ferry are virtually never mentioned in the interior but the preservation of the Union is. Revisionists can say anything they want; proof is quite another matter. >>
Now who is it that isn't citing sources?
<< <i>Revisionists can say anything they want; proof is quite another >>
I love it when people use "revisionist" as a dirty word. Since human beings are never 100% correct, we have to constantly look back at the past and ask questions about it. Sometimes this leads us to form different theories of the past. Revisionism is good. Change is the only constant, and we must constantly look at old events with new perspectives.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Do you base that opinion on any historical evidence, or is it simply a matter of personal bias? Holding murderers up as heroes is something you may wish to be very careful of. Killing people in war, or attempting to start a revolution (as at Harper's Ferry) is one thing. Dragging five white farmers out of their homes and splitting open their skulls with a broadsword is quite another. Then again, there are people who believe Manson was a hero, too.
To each his own.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
It's always nice to see the Confederate apologists out in force. You say the war had nothing to do with slavery, that it was all states rights and tariffs......I'm wondering what exactly state rights were they fighting for ? Oh yeah, the right to keep slaves. I wonder why every single state's articles of Confederation specifically mentions slavery if it was so unimportant ? Also, if it was states rights, why didn't any of the Confederate states have the 'right' to outlaw slavery in their state ? It was specifically forbidden in the Confederate constitution. I wonder how many of our southern brothers know that Calhoun, the 'father of secession' actually voted FOR the first tariffs ? If it was so terrible and worth fighting a war over, you would think that the esteemed senator from South Carolina wouldn't have voted for it, right ? Yes, economics played a role in the causes for war, but as a previous poster pointed out, slavery was the only issue that could not be settled. It brought the differences between an industrial north, and agricultural south to a head. They even drag out the old,"Lincoln hated the blacks, he wanted to keep them seperate, etc..." . Imagine this, Lincoln's views (which were shared by a vast majority of the country, we weren't as 'diverse' and 'tolerant' back then), evolved over time. He was a politician, so while I know it might be hard for some of you to believe, he was echoing what most of the country felt. Most northern men wouldn't fight to free the slaves, they would fight to preserve the Union however.
Comments
<< <i>In a few short years, you're going to wish the South had won the war! >>
Truly, though, the world is far better off. It's my opinion that if the South had won the war, we'd all be speaking German these days. (Think about it: instead of having a powerful U.S. to stand up against the Axis powers, we would have been two weaker and disunited nations.)
<< <i>The South simply wanted to be left alone. It wasn't a civil was as that is when two sides fight for control of a single government.
The South simply seceded and that's why that war is properly called the "War of Northern Agression".
I'm continually amazed at the complete ignorance and misunderstanding of those times.
And no, it wasn't about slavery either, though that made a good excuse and a thinly veiled justification for the headlines at the time. Lincoln didn't free the slaves either. Another common misconception.
Study and learn. >>
According to Wikipedia (the true authority on all things scholarly
<< ddink seems to have forgotten another important fact >>
No, I certainly have not forgotten that. It was very kind of Johnston, but after what Sherman did, he certainly did not deserve it.
It was a very public act which was widely reported at the time. It had enormous symbolism, which was
obvious to Johnston and clearly intended as such. ddink appears to think that he has the right to second-guess
Joseph Johnston, whose integrity is a matter of record. There is a considerable difference between "kindness"
and a well-publicized mark of public respect.
Denga
<< <i>According to Wikipedia (the true authority on all things scholarly ), the secession was about slavery: "Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences[14] that led to control issues, states' rights and secession of seven states." The secession may not have been about slaves rights or emancipation but it was certainly about slavery and the balance of power in Congress with the admittance of each new state to the Union. >>
The Civil War was my specialty in grad school, and I have come to agree completely with the above statement. The war was about states' rights and political power. But slavery was the trigger and the polarizing agent. In short: the war wasn't fought over slavery, but if slavery had not existed, I believe there would not have been a war. Both sections were different, but without a catalyst (particularly a powerfully emotional catalyst like slavery), I don't believe secession would have occured.
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union.
The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
<< <i>I did see that they are thinking about a set featuring prominent leaders of the confederacy. The complete set will be known as a box of crackers. >>
roflcopter!
<< <i>Lincoln is a war criminal as is Sherman. >>
As is Bush... as is Cheney... as is Rumsfeld.
Your point?
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>ddink appears to think that he has the right to second-guess Joseph Johnston >>
Nobody questions General Johnston's integrity. But for the record, yes, I believe that historians not only have the right, but the duty, to re-analyze and re-evaluate the historical record. Constantly asking new questions about old events is the entire reason that historians exist. Any graduate-level history program challenges its students to constantly question the past.
Boba: Lincoln was the original political spin doctor. He was a brilliant man and a consumate politician. Sometimes he almost sounds like he believed in what he was saying.
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
<< <i>excerpt from Lincolns message to Congress.
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union.
The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." >>
George W. couldnt have said it any better.....
<< <i>Thats why I am still hoarding confederate money.
I grew up in the South, had many teachers "of a certain age" whose fathers possibly and certainly grandfathers fought in the Woh-wa of Noh-thun Ag-gray-us-shun.
One in particular used to blurt out in a very Tourettes-y manner once in a while -- "Say-yiv yo Con-feder-ate muh-nih, the South will Raahhhhhhzzzz a-gay-un."
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>
<< <i>According to Wikipedia (the true authority on all things scholarly ), the secession was about slavery: "Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences[14] that led to control issues, states' rights and secession of seven states." The secession may not have been about slaves rights or emancipation but it was certainly about slavery and the balance of power in Congress with the admittance of each new state to the Union. >>
The Civil War was my specialty in grad school, and I have come to agree completely with the above statement. The war was about states' rights and political power. But slavery was the trigger and the polarizing agent. In short: the war wasn't fought over slavery, but if slavery had not existed, I believe there would not have been a war. Both sections were different, but without a catalyst (particularly a powerfully emotional catalyst like slavery), I don't believe secession would have occured. >>
Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. Wikipedia is written by regular folks with their own ax to grind and is often incorrect.
Only 2% of the population in the South actually owned slaves and of that, roughly 30% were black. Slavery was not a catalyst, but merely an excuse. When it comes to war crimes, those were nearly 100% commited by the North.
Popular history books and the truth don't always meet and this is an area where they rarely do.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. >>
Do you think the south would have seceded over taxation if slavery wasn't an issue? Slavery was such a big issue that Congress implemented multiple gag rules over the years leading up to secession, starting in 1836. Did Congress have to implement gag rules over taxation?
Do what again? Lose?
light background info
He was extremely important in the development of our government. Key to the hobby, he established the US Mint.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>"Be proud your a Rebel cause the Souths gonna do it again"
Do what again? Lose? >>
Its a Song (Charlie Daniels Band)..........Get a Life !
<< <i>Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. >>
I disagree with this. Consider one example of slavery as a polarizing force:
When John Brown raided Harper's Ferry, intending to lead an armed slave rebellion (with the stated intention of murdering white masters in their beds), the North viewed him as a hero. Editorials praised him, songs were written about him (The most important of which was "John Brown's Body." Julia Ward Howe changed the lyrics to the song, and we now know her version as of the song as "Battle Hymn of the Republic").
So here's a man whose stated purpose was to murder Southerners in their sleep, and Northerners praise him for this???
This is just one of many ways in which slavery became a polarizing force. As a previous poster (Zoins, iirc) stated, secession also occured due to the South's loss of political power within the Union. For decades the South had parity with the North in the Senate, and usually had a Southerner or Southern sympathizer as president. As the Democrats disintegrated in the 1850s, the entire balance of power shifted to the North. The South was faced with a complete loss of political power. Congress could now pass any law they wanted, with or without Southern support. Nonetheless, a Democrat president could still veto any "anti-Southern" (read: anti-slavery) legislation. When a Republican (Lincoln) was elected, however, all checks against Northern political power were irrevocably lost.
P.S. If anyone is interested in looking more deeply into the reasons for Southern secession, PM me and I'd be happy to email you a paper I wrote in grad school, which outlines several different theories on the war's origins.
Makes more sense to do a John Hanson dollar.
He was extremely important in the development of our government. Key to the hobby, he established the US Mint.
A neat trick as Hanson died in 1783 and the Mint was established in 1792.
Denga
<< <i>Coxe Monday June 04, 2007
Makes more sense to do a John Hanson dollar.
He was extremely important in the development of our government. Key to the hobby, he established the US Mint.
A neat trick as Hanson died in 1783 and the Mint was established in 1792.
Denga >>
Technically, he authorized the establishment of the Mint.
"Resolved, That Congress approve of the establishment of a mint; and, that the Superintendent of Finance be, and hereby is directed to prepare and report to Congress a plan for establishing and conducting the same." (21 Feb 1782)
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
I disagree with this. Consider one example of slavery as a polarizing force: When John Brown raided Harper's Ferry, intending to lead an armed slave rebellion (with the stated intention of murdering white masters in their beds), the North viewed him as a hero. Editorials praised him, songs were written about him (The most important of which was "John Brown's Body." Julia Ward Howe changed the lyrics to the song, and we now know her version as of the song as "Battle Hymn of the Republic"). So here's a man whose stated purpose was to murder Southerners in their sleep, and Northerners praise him for this???
His enemies may have attributed such sentiments to him but I have in front of me the official report of the Senate investigating committee
on the Harper's Ferry Raid and capture of John Brown. I cannot find the statement in this report – that Brown's purpose was to murder
Southeners in their sleep – but I am sure that ddink will provide the proper citation.
Denga
I guess that makes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee war criminals too, since they occupied similar posts in the Confederacy. In fact, they should have surrendered in the very beginning in order to avoid all the killing, but they didn't. Put the blame on them.
What a moronic post, nothing personal intended.
I knew it would happen.
Makes more sense to do a John Hanson dollar. He was extremely important in the development of our government. Key to the hobby, he established the US Mint.
A neat trick as Hanson died in 1783 and the Mint was established in 1792. Denga
Technically, he authorized the establishment of the Mint. "Resolved, That Congress approve of the establishment of a mint; and, that the Superintendent of Finance be, and hereby is directed to prepare and report to Congress a plan for establishing and conduct ing the same." (21 Feb 1782)
Unfortunately this authorization was a dead letter within a short time. In 1786 Congress again authorized a mint
and this legislation lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry. In neither case was a mint "established."
I do agree, however, that the Presidents of Congress (i.e. prior to 1789) deserve to be on the coinage at some
appropriate time.
Denga
<< <i>Sherman's actions were unspeakably inhumane. A little known (and very ironic) fact about Sherman is that he was the first president of LSU. >>
Really???? Another reason not to like LSU. Go Dawgs!
<< <i>His enemies may have attributed such sentiments to him but I have in front of me the official report of the Senate investigating committee. I cannot find the statement in this report – that Brown's purpose was to murder Southeners in their sleep – but I am sure that ddink will provide the proper citation. >>
The man seized a federal armory and began passing out weapons to slaves. What do you think he intended to do, build a campfire and sing songs? In case deductive reasoning momentarily fails you, McPherson states that "He planned to seize the U. S. armory and arsenal there and distribute its arms to slaves as they joined up with him." (McPherson, 208). Also consult Potter's Impending Crisis, pages 375-385.
Nonetheless, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point (again). Southerners perceived John Brown as a murderer (which he was--he murdered five men with a broadsword at Pottawattamie Creek) and were infuriated to see Northerners hailing him as a hero. "The distinction between act and motive was lost on southern whites. They saw only that millions of Yankees seemed to approve of a murderer who had tried to set the slaves at their throats. This perception provoked a paroxysm of anger more intense than the original reaction to the raid."--James McPherson, Battlecry of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 210.
Whatever your opinion on John Brown, the aftermath of his raid caused a dramatic polarization between North and South, which helped lead to war.
P.S. Of course you don't find any such "statements" in the official Senate report. Have you ever heard of bias? Who controlled the Senate at this time? Not Southerners!
<< His enemies may have attributed such sentiments to him but I have in front of me the official report of the Senate investigating committee. I cannot find the statement in this report – that Brown's purpose was to murder Southeners in their sleep – but I am sure that ddink will provide the proper citation. >>
P.S. Of course you don't find any such "statements" in the official Senate report. Have you ever heard of bias? Who controlled the Senate at this time? Not Southerners!
An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry
Raid. It is signed by three Senators: J.M. Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and Graham Fitch of Indiana.
I was unaware that Mississippi and Virginia were not in the South until I read ddink's comments; on second thought I still am.
Considering that Mason was the Chairman of this committee and Jefferson Davis a member, one would hope that ddink is
a little more accurate in his other statements. It is worth noting that Mason was from Virginia and that State was the primary
target of Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry (then in Virginia).
Denga
<< <i>I guess that makes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee war criminals too, since they occupied similar posts in the Confederacy. >>
Isn't "war criminal" defined by a person's actions rather than their position within the government?
<< <i>In fact, they should have surrendered in the very beginning in order to avoid all the killing, but they didn't. Put the blame on them. >>
This has to be the most ridiculous comment I've come across in awhile. Is Poland at fault for all the deaths of Polish citizens in WWII because they did not immediately surrender when Hitler invaded?
Because the South lost the war.
-David
At any rate, I feel strongly both ways.
is this a bad thing? If I was enslaved against my will and was given the opportunity kill the bastiges who were doing the enslaving. damn right im grabbing a gun.
Seems like there is an undercurrent to this thread that the wrong side won? and that slavery just aint so bad after all?
An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry
Raid. It is signed by three Senators: J.M. Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and Graham Fitch of Indiana.
I was unaware that Mississippi and Virginia were not in the South until I read ddink's comments; on second thought I still am.
Considering that Mason was the Chairman of this committee and Jefferson Davis a member, one would hope that ddink is
a little more accurate in his other statements. It is worth noting that Mason was from Virginia and that State was the primary
target of Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry (then in Virginia).
>>
Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Northerners would not allow the conspirators to testify to the committee: "Sanborn refused a summons from the Mason committee and resisted an attempt by the sergeant at arms of the Senate to arrest him. Massachusetts Cheif Justice Lemuel Shaw voided the arrest warrant on a technicality." (McPherson 207).
<< <i>An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry >>
Actually, that document would have been considered a secondary source (at the time). It is merely a compilation of what evidence the committee was permitted to hear. Of course, the sources I'm citing are secondary sources as well (I don't have access to any of John Brown's diaries or other documents, perhaps you do?).
Regardless, you have completely missed my point: my original comment was on the effect of John Brown's raid. Believe what you will about a man who commits treason (by attacking a federal armory) and murders five people with a broadsword.
<< <i>and that slavery just aint so bad after all? >>
Strange, I haven't yet seen a post indicating support for slavery. What I have seen are numerous posts outlining various reasons for the Civil War. If you want to believe that the Civil War was all about slavery, and nothing else mattered, that's your perogative. But I think anyone in this thread would encourage you to actually read some books and do some research before coming to that conclusion.
<< <i>is this a bad thing? If I was enslaved against my will and was given the opportunity kill the bastiges who were doing the enslaving. damn right im grabbing a gun. >>
It's a fine line between treason and revolution; between murder and self-defense. Only you can judge if what John Brown did was right or wrong. I cannot make that judgement for you.
I believe him to be a Hero.
<<An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry
Raid. It is signed by three Senators: J.M. Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and Graham Fitch of Indiana.
I was unaware that Mississippi and Virginia were not in the South until I read ddink's comments; on second thought I still am.
Considering that Mason was the Chairman of this committee and Jefferson Davis a member, one would hope that ddink is
a little more accurate in his other statements. It is worth noting that Mason was from Virginia and that State was the primary
target of Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry (then in Virginia).>>
Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that Northerners would not allow the conspirators to testify to the committee: "Sanborn refused a summons from the Mason committee and resisted an attempt by the sergeant at arms of the Senate to arrest him. Massachusetts Cheif Justice Lemuel Shaw voided the arrest warrant on a technicality." (McPherson 207).
Well, actually, the handful of others (all of whom are named in the report [Part I, page 19]) simply refused to appear or testify.
<< An interesting statement from someone who has obviously never read the primary document on the Harper's Ferry >>
Actually, that document would have been considered a secondary source (at the time). It is merely a compilation of what evidence the committee was permitted to hear. Of course, the sources I'm citing are secondary sources as well (I don't have access to any of John Brown's diaries or other documents, perhaps you do?).
A nice evasion as anyone reading the 325-page official report can see for themselves that there was an overabundance
of direct testimony, including discussions of Kansas and other sites associated with Brown. I am still, however, waiting for
proof of the statement that Brown wanted to kill people sleeping in their beds.
Regardless, you have completely missed my point: my original comment was on the effect of John Brown's raid. Believe what you will about a man who commits treason (by attacking a federal armory) and murders five people with a broadsword.
Brown's Raid was not all that popular in the North despite what later commentators had to say. Those who say otherwise
need to read Northern newspapers for the opening months of the war. John Brown and Harper's Ferry are virtually never
mentioned in the interior but the preservation of the Union is. Revisionists can say anything they want; proof is quite another
matter.
Denga
<< <i>The war never ended. It took about 130 years but the South is now clearly winning. Political power has been centered in the south for the past 20 years. The Northern States of 1865 have become more insignificant as each year passes. >>
We can see this affect our coinage as both commem topics issued this year are related to southern states, VA and AK
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Actually, secession was due to unequal taxation. Wikipedia is written by regular folks with their own ax to grind and is often incorrect.
Only 2% of the population in the South actually owned slaves and of that, roughly 30% were black. Slavery was not a catalyst, but merely an excuse. When it comes to war crimes, those were nearly 100% commited by the North.
Popular history books and the truth don't always meet and this is an area where they rarely do.
<< <i> >>
Exactly. The northern states had slaves as well, but history doesn't acknowledge this, yet! It was all about $$ and the war was brought on by Lincoln and the New England cabal who wanted to profit from the export business of the South who were shipping cotton over seas. The northern industrialists wanted a piece of the action.
Furthermore, slaves were brought into the country to northern states and sold by northerners to southern plantation owners. So don't tell me the war was about slavery. Go back and read your history, please.
<< <i>Lincoln is a war criminal as is Sherman.
I guess that makes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee war criminals too, since they occupied similar posts in the Confederacy. In fact, they should have surrendered in the very beginning in order to avoid all the killing, but they didn't. Put the blame on them.
What a moronic post, nothing personal intended. >>
You're off the mark about the history of the civil war.
Rob
"Those guys weren't Fathers they were...Mothers."
<< <i>"The man seized a federal armory and began passing out weapons to slaves"
is this a bad thing? If I was enslaved against my will and was given the opportunity kill the bastiges who were doing the enslaving. damn right im grabbing a gun.
Seems like there is an undercurrent to this thread that the wrong side won? and that slavery just aint so bad after all? >>
Ignorance enslaves people. uh hum.
<< <i>
<< <i>excerpt from Lincolns message to Congress.
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union.
The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." >>
George W. couldnt have said it any better.....
Here's something about Lincoln you might not know. Look anew on your Lincoln Copper.
Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:
"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 from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
I had a long post about Why Secession Had Oh So Much To Do With Slavery Despite the Romantic But Delusional View of the South, but someone else did a far better job.
Re-edited because, well... I put words in the wrong order.
<< <i>
<< <i>The war never ended. It took about 130 years but the South is now clearly winning. Political power has been centered in the south for the past 20 years. The Northern States of 1865 have become more insignificant as each year passes. >>
We can see this affect our coinage as both commem topics issued this year are related to southern states, VA and AK
Interesting point, and this Northerner has to agree. However, I don't think that congress is less likely to issue a Jefferson Davis presidential dollar as they are to issue a Charles Mingus commemorative half dollar. Charles Mingus? He was a tempestuous jazz bass player/composer who wrote "Fables of Faubus" in the late '50s about the Little Rock, AR events commemorated on our coins this year. The design of school children walking into a building is much more politically acceptable than either Jefferson Davis' image or Mingus' lyrics about "the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd great American heel, Faubus": "Why's he so sick and ridiculous? 2,4,6,8, they brainwash and teach you hate." Mingus's song and the notoriety of the 1957 Little Rock incident has ruined Gov. Faubus' chance of appearing on a commemorative coin a la his predecessor Arkansas' Gov. Joesph T. Robinson or perhaps his successor Bill Clinton.
These are great subject matters for postage stamps. In fact there's already a 32 cent 1994 commemorative Mingus stamp. Will we ever see Jefferson Davis or Charles Mingus on a U.S. Coin? Not as long as they are authorized by politicians afraid of angering their constituents. Instead, we get Stephen Foster commemorating a non-event or Helen Keller epitomizing Alabama. If you want to celebrate controversial Americans, take your issues to USPS, not the committees that authorize U.S. mint issues. Congresscritters have to please too many people to celebrate the likes of Jefferson Davis, or Orval Faubus, as much as they may secretly admire them.
"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 from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THAT was the REAL "Honest Abe."
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
A nice evasion as anyone reading the 325-page official report can see for themselves that there was an overabundance
of direct testimony, including discussions of Kansas and other sites associated with Brown. I am still, however, waiting for
proof of the statement that Brown wanted to kill people sleeping in their beds.
>>
And I'm still waiting on you to get the point.
<<
Brown's Raid was not all that popular in the North despite what later commentators had to say. Those who say otherwise
need to read Northern newspapers for the opening months of the war. John Brown and Harper's Ferry are virtually never
mentioned in the interior but the preservation of the Union is. Revisionists can say anything they want; proof is quite another
matter.
>>
Now who is it that isn't citing sources?
<< <i>Revisionists can say anything they want; proof is quite another >>
I love it when people use "revisionist" as a dirty word. Since human beings are never 100% correct, we have to constantly look back at the past and ask questions about it. Sometimes this leads us to form different theories of the past. Revisionism is good. Change is the only constant, and we must constantly look at old events with new perspectives.
<< <i>I believe him to be a Hero. >>
Do you base that opinion on any historical evidence, or is it simply a matter of personal bias? Holding murderers up as heroes is something you may wish to be very careful of. Killing people in war, or attempting to start a revolution (as at Harper's Ferry) is one thing. Dragging five white farmers out of their homes and splitting open their skulls with a broadsword is quite another. Then again, there are people who believe Manson was a hero, too.
To each his own.
I wonder how many of our southern brothers know that Calhoun, the 'father of secession' actually voted FOR the first tariffs ? If it was so terrible and worth fighting a war over, you would think that the esteemed senator from South Carolina wouldn't have voted for it, right ? Yes, economics played a role in the causes for war, but as a previous poster pointed out, slavery was the only issue that could not be settled. It brought the differences between an industrial north, and agricultural south to a head.
They even drag out the old,"Lincoln hated the blacks, he wanted to keep them seperate, etc..." . Imagine this, Lincoln's views (which were shared by a vast majority of the country, we weren't as 'diverse' and 'tolerant' back then), evolved over time. He was a politician, so while I know it might be hard for some of you to believe, he was echoing what most of the country felt. Most northern men wouldn't fight to free the slaves, they would fight to preserve the Union however.