Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Honestly Abe
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Had enough of Abraham Lincoln? Of course you haven't. In the bicentennial year of his birth, Lincoln is more interesting than ever.

There are two Lincolns -- the one we studied in school, the one full of myths that we fashioned into the image we wanted him to be, and the other, the real Lincoln, warts and all.

Many believe, erroneously, that because Lincoln signed The Emancipation Proclamation, he was always against slavery and an advocate for black people. Many also believe that the Proclamation freed all slaves immediately and forever.

These myths are debunked in a new book and TV program ("Looking for Lincoln" airing Feb. 11 on PBS). The book ("Lincoln on Race and Slavery") and the TV documentary are the works of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., who adds to his excellent body of material on race and African-American roots.

Far from diminishing Lincoln, the book and film deliver the real Lincoln as a man who struggled, along with his country and culture, over the inherent worth of black people. In short, he becomes fully human, not a mythical figure above the temptations and frailties of average mortals.

Lincoln evolved in the best sense of that word. Though like many in his and our time, he wrestled with his inner demons. As Gates writes, "... He seems to have wrestled with his own use of the 'n-word,' which he used publicly until at least 1862, and which most Lincoln scholars today find so surprising and embarrassing that they consistently avoid discussing it ..."

Yet, in a letter to Albert G. Hodges on April 4, 1864, Lincoln wrote. "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not think so, and feel."

Is this a contradiction, even hypocritical? Not in Lincoln's mind. At several points, extending into the early 1860s, Lincoln seriously considered a proposal to deport all black people and colonize them in Liberia, the Caribbean and/or Latin America. He was dissuaded primarily by the high cost, not by the immorality of such a venture.

Just days before his assassination in April 1865, Lincoln gave a speech in which he advocated the right to vote for "very intelligent negroes" and 200,000 black Civil War veterans. The rest he apparently would allow to remain in sub-citizenship because of a lingering belief that blacks, as a race, were not as gifted or intelligent as whites and the few who were should be regarded as exceptions. It was that speech, writes Gates, "overheard by John Wilkes Booth, by Booth's own admission, that led to his decision to assassinate the president."

The great abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, was a constant thorn in Lincoln's side, urging him to do what politically he did not always think he could do. Douglass pushed Lincoln toward dramatic and immediate action to free the slaves. He believed Lincoln was his only hope. Lincoln thought he could not move faster than the majority would tolerate and that in a nation already divided by civil war, he did not want to be the one to make things even worse, were that possible.

Douglass may have been the one least taken in by the Lincoln myth. While recognizing Lincoln's immense role in freeing some (but not all) slaves, he saw him first and foremost as devoted "to the welfare of the white race..." And yet, in that same tribute to Lincoln following his death, Douglass could also say without contradiction that Lincoln was "the first black man's president: the first to show any respect for their rights as men."

In 1876, Douglass was asked to reflect on Lincoln's legacy. He said, "Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery."

Lincoln overcame his prejudices sufficiently to begin moving his country in the right direction, culminating in the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States. Without Lincoln, his struggles and political courage in the face of his own prejudices, civil rights for black people would almost certainly have been further delayed and the election of a black president further denied.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Thousands and thousands of soldiers.....
...died to free the slaves. No one ever thanks them or mentions it. The blacks should raise a monument.

PresidentialBalls.com

It always
amazes me to hear "historians" tell us what a person such as Lincoln 'thought'. And then make up the said history in their own words so that it agrees with their desired belief.

Historians write and rewrite history
One wonders if a historical biography of Martin Luther King written by a white history professor exploring his personal history, his foibles and debunking myths would be warmly accepted and made into a PBS series or greeted with cries of 'racist' and calls for it be banned.

Brain not Skin Color
Mr. Thomas:
21st humans would consider the sorting and categorization of the books in a library that was based on the color and other features of the covers of those books to be absurd. Barack Obama’s election has shown that someone with “black” skin and other “black” physical features can be elected President, a fact that should be very encouraging to all those who happen to have similar skin color and physical features. But why should those of us who don’t (such as you and I) wish to focus attention on these Stone Age classifications of the members of our species except to deplore them?

Most people believe
the Civil War was about slavery - it was not. It was about States' Rights and whether the tyrannical majority could impose it's will on a minority.

Southerners knew in their hearts that the institution of slavery had to eventually go away, but since their whole economy was based upon "free" labor and no viable solutions were readily apparent, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Reminds me of the current energy debate: as of right now, there are no practical replacements for petroleum and coal, yet dhimmicrats are going to force "alternatives" down our throats at an extremely high cost. These new technologies are at best only in R & D, and at worst - boondoggles or pipe dreams.

In my own experience, trucks had evolved in the 80's and 90's to be much cleaner and efficient, but gubmint mandates forced the industry to keep tinkering with emission standards. In 2004 all new trucks had to be equipped with an EGR system which made engines more expensive, run hotter and got less MPG. Nobody wanted them, but we're stuck with them anyway, thanks to the demonization of diesel engines and trucking in particular.

Cars are going the same route. My wife and I were looking to take advantage of dealers' desperately seeking buyers but found her little 30-36 MPG Toyota with low miles wasn't worth much and my 98 Dodge Ram diesel even less.

The newer models of cars and trucks we looked at got 10-20% less mileage and were more expensive and complex. Huh? Imagine that? Gubmint mandates on emissions and safety produces a product which costs more and gains little.

When gubmint becomes the ruler of people instead of it's representative, it leads to civil war.

Roadmaster says
"Southerners knew in their hearts that the institution of slavery had to eventually go away"
Really?

The worst Slavers
are black....go to Africa now and see all the slavery. It was Black Africans that sold slaves to the the English to send to the colonies.
And now black Obama wants to enslave us to the power of a central government in Washington....through his socialists doctrines.

Slavery
The war was not about slavery. Both sides did not think they were fighting for slaves. The North didn't want black people either. Why would they fight for them? In the South, a small percentage of people had slaves. They didn't like that they were being taxed to subsidize Northern industries.

Anyway, slavery would have gone away anyway as it had all over the world in the 1800s. A war was not necessary to end it.

JamesB
You do know there were Southerners that aided the cause of abolition don't you?

JamesB
Yes...really, but at a time and way of their choosing. The abolitionists--who Sherman put most of the blame on for causing the war and who he loathed--weren't that patient. The result--secession and 600,000+ dead.

Tanker:

While secession was about slavery the war itself was not. Few in the South (with exceptions like TRR Cobb who was killed at Frederricksburg)were fighting to defend slavery and few in the Union Army were fighting to end it. The Emancipation Proclamation was opposed by many in the army--included its commander at the time George McClellan (who would be replaced by Burnside that gave us the "brilliant" moves at Fredericksurg and later the Battle of the Crater at Petersburg)and would run against Lincoln in 1864 as the nominee of the Peace Democrats.

During the Atlanta campaign, the Union had units from Kentucky and in one engagement you had Kentucky infantry on one side of the field fighting against dismounted Alabama cavalry on the other--no doubt you had slaveowners and non-slaveowners on both sides of the field that day.

Pat Cleburne (the best commander in my opinion of the war--either side) on Jan. 4, 1864 at Dalton, Georgia put forward the proposal that slaves in the Confederacy be freed in exchange for their service in the Confederate Army.

However, if not for slavery, there would have not been secession. The tariff issue was tiny compared to the major issue of the day--slavery.

The Human Race
What kind of a people constantly see the errors of their ways and continue down the same path?

Is it a myth that Lincoln delivered a proclamation? Is it a myth that over a quartermillion lost their lives? Is it a myth that America corrected this travesty only to deny civil rights for another century?

Jesus Christ was a human. Humans that follow his teaching have done wrong after wrong but there are millions that have done good for their fellow man.

I haven't read this book but I can assure you that if libs are involved in any history lesson it will be twisted to their agenda.

There is no way to read a mind centuries later but there is a way to read actions. Try it.
Mr. President, I suggest you follow that credo as well. Everyone will remember your recorded and written word. But your actions thus far are abundantly clear. You misled the voters and now you mislead the country into thinking you have a mandate. If your polls drop I would suggest your mandate is disappearing. If you have a center I would hope you will find it. For your actions not your talk. If you want to be like Lincoln that is.

Roadmaster--Part I
First, it is really incorrect to call it the Civil War as it wasn't one. a civil war is when two factions are fighting to control the same government. The Confederacy had no desire to have Illinois and Maine in its ranks (which makes the idiotic film CSA by that fool Kansas professor, Willmott so ridicilous among others crazy positions he puts forward in that film).

Secession was over state rights...the right of the states to hold slaves. And while few in the Confederate Army were slave-owners (and large slave-owners in fact were exempt from the Confederate draft), most in the statehouses and governor's mansions were and they were the ones that voted on the various ordinances of secession not some poor dirt farmer in Cass County, Georgia.

Roadmaster--Part II
As for their whole economy…depends on the state.

Of the seven states that left before Sumter, 6 of the 7 had a slave population of 44% or more. Mississippi it was 55% and half the families in the state owned slaves. In SC it was 57% and again half owned slaves. Only Texas (30% slave) was under 40% and left before April 14, 1861. No doubt these six states would have been totally devastated by slavery's immediate demise. And no surprise they dominated the drive toward secession and the creation of the CSA. The king of the fire-eaters was SC--nearly 60% slave.

But look at the upper south. Arkansas 26% slave, NC 33%, Virginia 31%, Tennessee 30%. Slavery's demise while painful would not have been a total disaster. Now look at the Union slave states. Missouri (and who supplied the Confederate Army with the most "Orphans) 10%, Maryland 13%, Kentucky (which wanted to stay out of the war entirely until the Confederate Army stupidly invaded it in the fall of 1861)20% and Delaware where slavery was actually dead all but in name--a grand total of 1,798 slaves--2% of the population with 3% of the families there owning slaves. Slavery's end here while slightly distasteful wouldn't be all that painful. Thus it is no surprise that the states with the largest slave populations left before April 14, those in the middle left after April 14 and those with the smallest never left at all.

Akagi
Since there were Congressional fights over the status of American territory for decades before the War Between the States this was a war between industries. Whose would win out? I think the South saw that they were at a disadvantage depending on crops and warm weather shipping instead of heavy industry so they were using slavery issues to maintain a Congressional draw in voting. If a few rich Northerners had gone south in 1830-1860 with well armed protection and started industrial bases this could have been changed without a shot. Plantations would have been marginalized into extinction as former slaves were hired to do men's work.

Roadmaster--Part I
The Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery at the outset. It was about a simmering fued betwwen the North and South over protective tarrifs. The taxes derived from imports from Europe that primarily went to the north leaving the south scrounging and barely able to operate.

This disparity brewing for almost a century finally came to a head in 1860 and caused the south to leave the union.

My Man Jones.....
With respect, sir, don't ever look for gratitude among the majority of blacks. Gratitude is an anathema to the left as are all other traits of Character.

Our (imperfect) history provides fuel for the entitlement gravy-train, and thus an expectation of goods and services to that demanding population.

LD35
You think one can't decode what one thought and believed from his writings and speeches--especially Lincoln? That is total BS. We know his views of government going way back--look at his Lyceum Speech given in 1838 and move forward--we know his thoughts on race, on slavery, and "restoring" the Union and on and on just as we know for example Sherman's view on slavery and his view on abolitionists. If any "historian" tried to make up history to fit their own belief they would be slammed by others who didn't agree--history, like all scholarship has to be based on facts and in the case of history this means primary and secondary sources. If I make a statement, Lincoln was a pedophile that liked to have sex with mules--I better have a number of sources to back up that claim.

Patrick:

Yes and as they should. History isn't static as new research comes forward--"facts" thought to be true are replaced by new ones which may in turn at some point be replaced themselves.

A book saying MLK cheated on his wife and Plagiarized wouldn't be all that noteworthy--this information has been out there for years.

If there was a book showing organized links between say King and the USSR, King given support by the USSR and even taking direction from Soviet handlers and you had sources to back it up? Some "MLK is God" types would howl, but if true and backed up by verified sources--fine. Now if on the other hand, "I have a tape and on it is MLK's grandmother saying she saw him meet with a Soviet agent in her home (that scenerio ring a bell?), then it could rightfully be trashed as tripe.

lincoln
was the original democrat. before lincoln, the constitution was taken seriously. lincoln ignored the constitution and locked up anyone who objected. subsequently, the democrats have learned that they too can ignore the constitution and do whatever they want. why uphold the constitution when there is a vote to be bought, and a country to be looted.

We are a century and a half
since Lincoln adn a half a century since King and we have a black president, black governors, black mayors, black senators and representatives and black justices. We have influential black men and women that are some of the richest people in the country. We had the first black woman as secretary of state and she was vilified as an “Aunt Jemimah” by whites and blacks with no back lash. We had a senator honor a 100 yr old senator, both mind you elected for decades from heavy minority southern states, chastised for weeks because this senator had run as Dixiecrat over 50 years earlier.

It is plain to see that there is a double standard going on and the leaders of this double standard happen to occupy every major Federal position in DC along with willing dupes in every special interest and, not an msm, but a pmm (Propaganda Media Machine) to aid them. I hope you fringe staters, and it really is a few fringe suburbs in VA, FL, CO, NV and NC, understand what you have wrought on this nation. This is no Lincoln and you better wake up by 2010 or there will be no one to block his excesses.

curmudgeon
You're dead on! I was wondering if anyone would mention the way Lincoln treated the Constitution as his personal plaything! Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Kevin Gutzman. The chapter on the Civil War and the battering the Constitution took during that time is pretty enlightening!

Sky--Part I
Reality time.

The war while not over slavery, secession was. While tariffs were an issue (see the Nullification Crisis, 1832-1833), this was over slavery. The South wanted to expand slavery into the new territories (like Kansas which would become a free state in 1861), Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and the like. Lincoln supported not touching slavery where it existed, but opposed its expansion--Lincoln had basically a Truman Doctrine on slavery.

Douglas' view was hardly better. He support popular sovereignity--meaning the people of the territory decide if it enters the Union as a free or slave state. The South had seen this film before and didn't like how it ends--Kansas.

In short, in the South's view--Douglas and Lincoln's position were the same--no expansion. Lincoln by law and Douglas by facts on the ground and the free-soilers would simply out populate and outvote the pro-slavery forces.

The slave states once at 50:50 but by 1861, it was 19:15. In 1850, it was 15:15. With many more territories out west soon to be states (Nevada 1864, Nebraska 1867, Colorado 1876, SD and ND and Washington 1889, Idaho 1890, Utah 1896) and on top of that slavery dead in Delaware and dying in Maryland--by 1900, it may have been 29:13. The only territory solidly slave was the Indian Territory. The only way to save slavery was to leave the Union. By 1858, the South was done with this Union thing. Only question was how and when.

Sky--Part II
If not for slavery there is no Republican Party, there is no Lincoln (at a candidate Lincoln), the Democratic Party doesn't splitter and the Whig's don't implode in 1860, Lincoln is never elected, there is no secession, and there is no war. You can't weave a logical tale of secession and the war without slavery.

Yes, there were rumblings of secession before--South Carolina in 1832, Georgia over Indian Removal in the 1830s, New England over the War of 1812--but these all ended with the states still inside the Union. Only slavery was a powerful enough issue to break the bonds of the Union.


A few things
Indy--Nevada? Obama won Nevada because of Clark and Washoe Counties which he won 58% and 55% of the vote respectively. Las Vegas is the largest city in Nevada and the suburbs of Las Vegas like Henderson tended toward McCain. Obama also won by plurality Carson City, the capital. Clark County has a population of 1.9 million and Washoe 396,000 and Carson City about 52,000.

Nevada is 2.6 million, so Clark and Washoe and Carson City make up nearly 90% of Nevada's population. You win Clark and Washoe, you win the state. McCain won 70% of Lincoln and Esmeralda and 68% of Elko--but Lincoln has 5,000 people and Elko maybe 50,000. Esmeralda only 700--it doesn't even have a high school in its school district. McCain got 330 votes in Esmeralda compared to Obama's 104. But in Clark, Obama got 380,000 to McCain's 257,000. More people voted for Barr from Clark County than even exist in Esmeralda. It wasn't the suburbs voting for Obama, but the major population centers. It was the rural (mostly Mormons) areas that voted for McCain. Even in Clark, it was places like the Moapa Valley (Glendale and the like) which are rural and heavily Mormon that voted for McCain not those living on Maryland Parkway or Tropicana Avenue someplace.

I hope Obama is no Lincoln, after Lincoln left office (via a bullet to the head) 600,000 others lay dead in his wake. As a percentage of the population, that would be millions--5.7 million by my guess.



tanker
I'm not sure that slavery as it was practiced in the South would have ever died "naturally" as it did in the rest of the world. The situation in America was unique. In what other nation was the foundation of society laid with slaves that were kidnapped from their homeland and kept in perpetual servitude throughout their generations?

I believe the War Between the States was a Divine judgment on both the North and the South for allowing an otherwise great country to be formed with such an injustice.

The Republican Party then and now






We forget that the Republican Party of Lincoln’s era was the “liberal” party of that time, and the abolitionist were the “far left”. The Republican’s stood for protectionism, earmarks for infrastructure (mostly railroads), and a strong central government whose laws would supercede state law. Thanks to the Union’s victory, the 10th amendment is virtually meaningless today.

To think that the Civil War was fought solely over the issue of slavery, and that the South seceded from the Union, solely over the issue of slavery, is a very narrow view of history.






Andrea
Like to provide some support for your cliams.

Slavery--where slaves were kidnapped and sold and held for generations died in slaves states such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. It was all but dead in Delaware in 1860 with slaves only amounting to 2% of the population. It was under stress where it was widespread such as Mississippi and it died out in Brazil and Cuba (1871 and 1889).

There is no reason to expect it would not have died out in the US--everywhere as well. Slavery was a terribly inefficient system with huge unproductive costs--you had to feed, house and clothe even unproductive slaves--the old, sick and young. Slaves made poor workers in more advanced industries say working in a glass factory or an ironworks and since they would often break (on purpose) simple farm implements "sorry boss." do you really want them mucking around expensive industrial equipment?

The invention of the cotton harvester and agrochemicals such as defoliants (used to make the leaves drop from the cotton plant so you get only cotton bolls and not leaves too)would makes slavery unnecessary. It was dying in 1860, but people just couldn't wait could they? Was I few extra decades really worth 600,000 people? I say no. If slavery hadn't died on its own by 1920, it would have been dead then--thanks to Mr. Boll Weevil.



Russell
There were other issues, but those could have been worked out, not slavery.

Russell
"To think that the Civil War was fought solely over the issue of slavery, and that the South seceded from the Union, solely over the issue of slavery, is a very narrow view of history."

The war wasn't over slavery--it was over restoring the Union or from the Southern side, defending home and hearth, but secession was almost entirely over secession. If not for slavery the South would have never left the Union. It wasn't the only issue--but it was the only issue strong enough to break the bonds of the Union. Granted, slavery wasn't the only cause, but it was the primary cause--90% of the cause. To ignore that and say "no it was state rights or it was tariffs or it was the economic differences" is an insult to the actual cause of the war.

Simply no slavery, no war.

Akagi
No one who started that war would have believed that so many would die. Interestingly enough, even after so many horrific battles, the worst of the war, Union troops voted for Lincoln, knowing in so doing, they were continuing the war. Also, as the war proved, the South had amazing generals and troops and could have easily expanded their empire to Cuba, Mexico, and to all the territories west.

Taft
100% correct.

Tariffs could be worked out as they were in the 1832-1833 crisis. Slavery couldn't. You had a president unwilling to compromise--his words "it's time for the South to compromise this time" in regards to the failed Compromise of 1861 which made an iron clad provision protecting slavery where it existed, addressed the fugitive slave law issue in DC, and the permanent reestablishment of the Missouri Compromise line which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and a South that was unwilling to accept either Lincoln closing all new territories (areas where were not states--no matter if slavery was pracriced there or not)to slavery or Douglas' popular sovereignity idea. The only solution for the South was secession (they should though have followed Stephens' advice--take Lincoln at his word, stay in the Union and then if he broke it and moved on slavery--all leave at the same time). At this point Lincoln had two choices--let the South leave (my prefered option) or force the South back in--he picked the latter and 600,000 people died as a result.


Taft
President Lincoln could have been more proactive in resolving the secession crisis and working some of those issues out but his response was to raise 75000 troops. 4 states did not secede until Lincoln made such a decision.

Russell

You might be right, and I sure need to know more, I did read this though in Bruce Catton's book.
"
Perhaps it still was not too late for an adjustment. [South Carolina and some other had seceded after Lincoln's election] A new nation had come into being [confederacy] but its creation might simply be a means of forcing concessions from the Northern majority;no blood had been shed, and states which voluntarily left the old union might voluntarily return if their terms were met. Leaders in Congress worked hard, that winter on 1861, to perfect a last -minute compromise . Senator John Crittenden of Kentucky worked one out, In effect, it would re-establish the old line of the Missouri Compromise, banning slavery in territories north of the line and protecting it south; it would let future states enter the Union on a popular sovereignty basis; it called for enforcement of the fugitive slave law; and it provided that the Constitution could never be amended in such a way as to give Congress power over slavery in any of the states. Lincoln refused to accept it. The sticking point with him was the inclusion of slavery in the territories, he wrote a Republican associate to " entertain no proposition for a compromise in the extension of slavery." page 16

Akagi
I respect your position on this. I'm still not so sure though. Its such an interesting topic!

Taft--Part I
The reason Lincoln won in 1864 over McClellan who the soldiers in the Union army loved was because they knew the war was won. Atlanta had fallen. If various things had happened in Georgia in May of 1864 which I won't go into and if say Cleburne or Johnson has been the commander of the Army of Tennessee in September of 1863 and not that fool Bragg, Atlanta wouldn't have and Lincoln would as he predicted before the fall of Atlanta--lose badly.

As for going after Cuba and the like, to use Lincoln's feelings at the time "would amount to a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and state owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego."

But pure tripe--and used by that idiot Willmott in CSA as well.

When Mexico was defeated in 1848, many wanted to take the whole place. Calhoun--the ideological father of Southern secession warned against it--taking the populated areas of Mexico instead of just the nearly uninhabited areas meant having "brown" territories and eventual "brown" states with brown senators and Congressmen and perhaps even a brown president. The US was a white nation for white people--Mexicans were to be left in Mexico.

The look at Cuba and southward was to balance the tide in the free-state/slave-state makeup. Since the CSA was a 100% slave-owning nation and thanks to how the CSA Constitution was constructed it always would be--as long as slavery was alive, the CSA would be all slave.

Taft--Part II--Generals
As for generals, some were--Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Cleburne, Stuart (he messed up bad at Gettysburg though), both Johnsons (A.S. and Joe).

But terrible ones too--Bragg and Hood and Kirby Smith. P.G.T. Beauregard wasn't all that hot either. On balance, the CSA had better commanders, but because it had hardly any good ones at all--McClellan and Burnside? Meade was just barely better. Grant was average at best and won only because he could just bleed Lee to death--his tactics were crass and unimaginative. One thing I can say, he was a much better commander than he was as president. Sherman was good. Sheridan--as good probably as Forrest or Stuart as a cavalry commander.

Akagi
The political theory behind secession was that the Federal government was formed by the states, for the states. The Federal government received its powers by the states granting them (ceding)to it. The purpose of the Federal government was to serve all the states equally, without favortism of one over another. That when the Federal government ceased to serve the best interest of the states, the states reserved the right to secede or withdrawl.

No then, why would the Southern states wish to remain in a Union where they would forever be a political minority? It was more than just slavery. Southerners knew then that the majority in power in the Federal government would force their agenda on them. That they would be out voted in both houses of congress. The Federal tariff was extreamly regressive and mostly born by Southerns. Southern ports collected nearly 75% of the federal revenue but the tax money was being used to fund earmark projects in the North.

Taft
Not exactly. The Compromise of 1861 would have guranteed the states below the 36.5 would be slave. The South rejected the popular sovereignity model put by Douglas because you saw what with "Squatter rights" happened in Kansas, they got out populated by free-soilers and then before you know it--it comes in as a free-state, they weren't having any of this.

As for secession as a form of extortion. That was the fear of the big time fire eaters like Robert Barnwell Rhett of SC. They distrusted the upper South feeling that was their plan to go out, get concessions from the North (like say Crittenden compromise)and come back in and then a few years down the road faced with more "northern aggression" on the slavery issue. No, they weren't having any of that! Not the lower South--it was out for good--no reconstruction (a term meaning reunion and not the same as the term applied in 1865).

Akagi

I've never read such a good counter agreement! Good job. I've almost finished reading Bruce Catton's A Stillness at Appomatttox, and I'm getting hooked on Civil War history.

Russell
While I agree with you on the theory of secession--I believe a state has a right to leave the Union--it was still slavery that forced them out. As you saw, the tariff issue of 1832-1833 was solved without SC leaving--with a little proding from Jackson by planning to use force against SC.

Jackson was no less a tyrant than Lincoln in this regard--and a flaming racist to boot. If they change the currency ever, he should be the one of the first to go--they should all go in my opinion, but a debate for another day.

What drove SC out was the Federal government failure on a good faith basis to enforce the fugitive slave act--as such SC's view (a correct one) that the US government had violated its compact with SC and thus the Union between the two were null and void. This had nothing to do with tariffs and everything with slavery.

Conservatives and Lincoln
Even when Lincoln is studied by historians who do show him 'warts and all,' as Cal Thomas puts it, Lincoln is still a president whose actions and beliefs should be unacceptable to genuine conservatives.

First, genuine conservatives should be sympathetic to the Southern cause. The Southern view of the legitimacy and rightness of slavery and the Southern understanding of the Constitution should be seen, from the standpoint of conservatism, as basically correct.

Second, regardless of how Lincoln's thinking began, as president he was the original big-government practitioner of radical social engineering when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Someone posted that the Republicans were the "liberals" of their time--which is on target. They were committed to a "national" understanding of the United States rather than the loose alliance of states which was the conservative and constitutional view.

Third, genuine conservatives respect and seek to maintain traditional society and its sustaining beliefs. Nothing disrupted this more than the course of events begun by the Civil War. Conservatives should not praise anything about the 'accomplishments' of that war; instead, for the Right it should stand as a deplorable, near-disastrous exercise of power by the liberal state.

Finally, as a liberal, I, of course, praise Lincoln and believe that the destruction of the Southern traditional social order was both good and necessary. But conservatives should not agree with me.

Akagi
Jackson was use to being a general and barking orders. He viewed his VP John C. Calhound as a subordinat and not as an elected official in his own right. Same with President Taylor in the secession crisis of 1850.

The South's move towards secession was builting for years. Each year, the two sections of the country growing futher and futher apart.

In studing the Civil War, I would recommend the study of the economic crisis of 1857, known as the panic of 1857, for some prespective. This is often overlooked but no the less important. In studing it, try and make a connection to the Republican Party's postition on the expansion of slavery and the Homestead act of 1862. They had a forclosure crisis and a need for bank bail outs then too.

Friends, I have to leave for today. Perhaps I can rejoin the conversation later.

Taft
You should come and visit some of the battlefields some time--those not under pizza huts and the like anyway.

Gestell:

"...as president he was the original big-government practitioner of radical social engineering when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation..."

Had nothing to do with social engineering. Total BS. It was a wartime measure to defeat the South--it had three goals--stop Europe from coming to the direct aid of the CSA by sending troops or start giving (instead of selling) them arms. By the Fall of 1862 owning to what happened in places like Antietam (September 1862--which gave birth to the EP in the first place) and the Fall of Nashville (February 1862), Shiloh (April 1862) and New Orleans (April 1862) this was never very likely despite again Willmott's claims in CSA. But even if things had gone much better for the CSA by the fall of 1862, the British Empire and France would be much less likely to come to its aid as now the war had also become a war to end slavery.

Second, to sow fear into the hearts and minds of the Confederate citizenry and thus make surrender a better option than losing their slaves--this didn't work out so well.

And finally, as word of the EP spread and Union lines crept closer and most of the men away at the front, encourage slaves to runaway to the Union lines depriving the South of a vital labor source and provided the Union with free labor as the slaves were viewed as contraband--captured enemy property. These were organized into pioneer brigades to cut roads, build fortifications, used to drive wagons, and in some cases formed combat unites (e.g. 1st South Carolina Volunteers). Half of the troops that fought at the Battle of Ocean Pond on the Union side were black--many of them contraband.

Gestell
"They were committed to a "national" understanding of the United States rather than the loose alliance of states which was the conservative and constitutional view..."

And as the book title exclaims...the South was Right--and Lincoln and the rest of his lot were wrong.

"...legitimacy and rightness of slavery and the Southern understanding of the Constitution should be seen, from the standpoint of conservatism, as basically correct."

Perhaps not, but as for the legitimacy of secession as the ultimate check on Federal tyranny and abuse--exactly. Ever heard of a legal concept known as the "tipsy coachman" meaning while the primary reason for secession may have been flawed, secession itself is a valid check on federal power--I'd argue the ultimate check.

"...it should stand as a deplorable, near-disastrous exercise of power by the liberal state."

It should. And calling it a civil war is imprecise as it wasn't--the best term is "The War of Southern Secession." War of Southern Independence is good too but since it failed in its bid... It is also not A War Between the States--while the States provided units--1st Mississippi, 6th Georgia--there were under unified national commands--the Confederate Army and the Union Army--it was a war between two states--the United States and the CSA. The Chinese Civil War was a civil war--this war was not.

And tell me again, how am I a WWII revisonist? You never answered my demands for you to explain that.


LZstud
"And now black Obama wants to enslave us to the power of a central government in Washington through his socialists doctrines."

Wasn't the $750 billion Bush-Bolshevik bank bailout Socialism? The Republican party is very similar to the Bolshevik party in Russia circa 1917.

Russia was governed by a triumvirate of three men called Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin.

Today, Republican-Bolsheviks are George Bush, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

And now the Republican wealth-redistribution continues. Today, I read that banks, having received their first $250 billion installment of taxpayer monies, are distributing it to their sacred stockholders in the form of dividend checks.

Another item on the banker's list on how to best use the taxpayer's money, is to partake in some lucrative Mergers and Acquisition activity. Oh, these Bush-Bolsheviks are clever in their wealth redistribution. Now, I'm beginning to think the term 'Bush-Fascists' is more apropos. What do you think?

zapdoodat
Bush is in Crawford and will spend the rest of his days trying to untarnish his Carter-like legacy. Hank Paulson is gone and will go down as the worst SOT in the history of the United States and perhaps the worst Finance Minister on the planet--ever--perhaps the entire Milky Way. And Ben? Worst Central Banker since....forever...anywhere on planet earth and far all time.

The terrible, incomptent tenure of Bush, the idiot is over. Let it go!

Obama--now in charge can stop the spending can't he? If he didn't like the bailout Bush gave the banks, put a new piece of legislation--he has 58 votes in the Senate and 257 in the House--if he desired his floor leaders could sponsor legislation to pull back what has not been spent and sign it into law.

So Obama is on the socialism train too. Look at the "stimilus" bill.


Time for another....
...civil war.

Or we could just slice up the country where liberal leaders and their chronically dependent serfs can have a perpetual field day in their own country taking from the formerly productive fools that choose to live with them. Whining would be encourage among the population, and "social worker" would be the primary profession.

Of course, we'd have to build a wall around the free capitalist nation to keep the parasites out. If any free and independent citizen went mental and started with the redistribution rhetoric, they would be immediately banished to the The United States of Serfdom.

I like that name, "The Free and Capitalist States of America".

Akagi
Yes, you are right that slavery was doomed from an economic perspective with the advent of the industrial revolution. But, what I am saying is that Southern slavery was a moral and theological problem. When you have strict Southern Presbyterians like Dabney trying to defend chattel slavery from the pulpit, your society is going to be judged.

But Pro
The most productive states (per capita income, highest GDP) are mostly liberal--NY, California, Washington State, etc.

And in say Georgia the income and GDP engine is Atlanta will it be blue or red? How about Las Vegas and Reno? they voted blue (and took the state with them)and the rest of the state voted red.

pro from dover
You may be in slight jest, but what you truly has merit. The fact is we are already engaged in a war, it's just not taking place on a physical battlefield, and there are no true leaders for the Constitutional/conservative side, there is no one rallying the people, no one decrying the crimes being committed. Please take this seriously, if you live in a "lost" state such as California, Oregon, Massachusetts, get up, move NOW. Move to one of what I call a 1st tier state; Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia. We are too spread out to have the effect we want and need. We need to be consolidated, to be such a force in certain states, that we will create power blocs, we will have safe havens, and should worse come to worse we will be where we need to be. It is not happening with the current "loyal"opposition, too many of them are too enamored themselves of power and doing right. Listen to me, GET OUT of those "lost" states. Now is not the time to think that ordinary measures will bring about change. So yes, I propose a radical, yet peaceful measure such as simply moving, leave the West Coast, leave the Northeast, flood the 4 states I mentioned to start off with. We need to start thinking of our future, and not just stay somewhere, because we are comfortable there or have roots or some such.

Andrea
Many people in the north didn't feel much differently. Blacks were seen as inferior on every level--intelligence, morally, spirtually. They were human, but like children--in child-like state forever--I suppose like we judge some mentally handicapped people today.

The issue was slavery and even here it differed. In the lower Midwest--southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and the lower Mid-Atlantic like PA--they weren't all that opposed to slavery--Sherman from Ohio wasn't--Grant and his wife both at one point owned slaves (Grant freed his before the war, his wife not until 1863)located in Missouri.

Support for the EP (and remember the GOP lost heavily in the 1862 midterms) was based on the idea that the freed slaves would be sent "back" to Africa and not become freemen able to do as any citizen of the US could--including say moving to Indiana. Lincoln suckered them didn't he?

Once he won re-election, he had no intention of going forward with the colonization project.

Gestell Sings Praise
"Finally, as a liberal, I, of course, praise Lincoln and believe that the destruction of [600,000+ lives and $6 billion+] was both good and necessary. "

Hopefully you'll still feel the same way when Roe v Wade is overturned.

Akagi
Can you surmise how discipline was enforced on Washington's or Jefferson's plantation?

I mean, say a slave attempted an escape and then was caught. Do you think the slave would have been punished? Perhaps, the slave would have only been given a stern warning like, "Please do not do that again!"

Lenard
Are you following you own advice? Maryland is one of the most blue of all the states.

And what if you live in Tennessee but live in Memphis? And in California you live in say Orange County or Lancaster? States aren't monolithic--they are liberal areas--like say Las Vegas and Conservative areas--like Goldfield or Elko.


Akagi
I agree that Northerners were racist as well; that is why I said in my initial post that the war was a judgment on both sides. But, the South, promoting itself as a Christian society, should have known better.

Slaves
Most slaves didn't run away. Where ya going to run to? If you got caught, there were consequencies and that depended on how stern (you can use cruel, sadistic if you like) the owner was. Say a POW ran away from Changi and the Kempeitai caught him--what do you think the punishment would be?

There is a point to this question?

AKAGI
Maryland due to it's location, and a few other reasons is actually what I consider a 2nd tier state. Thanks for being critical rather than helpful. If you're only purpose here is to engage in dialogue go right on ahead. If you're actually concerned about what we are facing in the USA, and believe you have solutions, then please put them out there.

Christians
Their belief was that Africa was far worse (I suppose they had a point). And what happened in Africa in the 19th century by Europe was an attempt to snuff slavery out--as you must note it still exists. Slavery was opposed by many Christians--north and south. There were abolitionists in the South--Angelina & Sarah Grimke are but two examples (been in their father's home--Heyward-Washington House).

It has been said slavery was the only African practice fully adopted by the US--it existed before the US in Africa, it existed before Europeans sat foot in the Americas, it existed before Europeans sat foot in Africa and it has continued long after it vanished from European and American shores. Slavery in Europe and her colonies and the United States was ended by Christians--as for the war God judgement--that is a bunch of rot--what that nutcase John Brown felt that the taint of slavery had to be washed away by blood.

Notice that such wasn't required in either Brazil or Cuba. Ironically, many Confederates moved to Brazil after the war--perhaps 20,000 known as Confederados--their descendants live their to this day, but generations of intermarriage make them basically no different from most people of Brazil--some still have celebrations and such to mark their Confederate heritage. One major settlement which still has a good number of them (they have pretty much spread throughout Brazil is Americana in the State of Sao Paulo--saw a special about them a few years ago on National Geographic--prior to that I have never heard of them--something that is never taught. I even talked to a woman from Brazil--from Rio and she had never heard of them either.

Akagi
But in a new and free nation, many people in the places you mentioned would be packin' their bags and loadin' up to move and pledge allegience to their new country.

Keep in mind that a majority of voters want socialism so they can keep their states as blue as they want. But they won't survive long without productive and free people providing for them.

I can here it all now: "Let me in, please! I didn't mean to vote democrat or for that RINO! I'll provide for myself and take care of my own! Honest I will!"

Again, all of those new citizens of the free and capitalistic nation who start with the redistribution whining will automatically be expelled to the socialist states. Those that want to unionize a workforce in the free nation would simply be shot.

OOPS!!!
That's "I can HEAR it all now". Pardon, folks.

Btw: As far as those who decide they want to unionize in the new and free country, they will be given 24 hours to leave, and if they don't, we'd grease up the firing squad.

Cal Thomas
writes, "Without Lincoln, his struggles and political courage in the face of his own prejudices, civil rights for black people would almost certainly have been further delayed and the election of a black president further denied."

Okay to the first part. As an afterthought, Lincoln decided he could use the slavery issue to help his political cause. Because of this, the civil rights for black people were hastened. To say it would have kept Obama from being elected president is pure BS. One hundred and forty-three years later. Come on Cal. Jim Crow laws even in the north proved that the time was not yet ripe. Perhaps if the War of 1860 was not fought, slavery would have died naturally over time and we would have achieved equal rights far sooner and elected a black president back in 1932. Who the hell knows. Lincoln lied, 800,000 Americans died.

Lenard
Your proposal is from people in say California move to say Tennessee? But since economics will force most into cities--Obama won Nashville and Memphis--the only major cities he won there was Knoxville (to be precise Knox County) and Chattanooga (again to be precise Hamilton County). So how is it smart for a person living in say Lancaster to move to Memphis?

Provide solutions? To what exactly? You getting your hat handed to you by the Democrats in 2006 and 2008? Well, moving to Tennesee isn't going to be the answer--you make.

As Hispanics grow in Texas, it won't be much different from California will it? Many of the major cities there--Houston, Austin--are already very liberal. Virginia? How do you fare there in 2006 and 2008?

Might I suggest these states instead--Utah; Idaho; SD and ND, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas (but burn Lawrennce down--again--first), Nebraska, Mississippi, Alabama, and SC. How is making Red States more red and Blue States more blue (and those with huge EC numbers and House seats--California, NY, Illinois and the like) going to help you. You just making "Redneck" reservations--you might as well be the Ainu or something. And this all relates to Lincoln in what way?

But Pro
Some of those guys packing will be your guys, Las Vegas liberals outnumber the conservative ranchers and miners out in Elko and Goldfield.

In a fight between gang-bangers in Memphis and mountainboys in Sevier County, who do you think wins that fight?

An excellent thread
It has been a pleasure reading this thread, since most writers have been trying to contribute instead of vilify.

I agree with Akagi and others that slavery was dying economically even before the war started. This was not only due to the increased mechanization of agriculture, but also due to the depletion of soils by the labor-intensive plantation crops that originally made slavery economically viable. By the time the war started, pretty much only the deep south had soils that could still sustain such crops and the days were numbered for those areas.

One other consideration comes to mind about the possibilities of success for secession. The name of the new political entitity was the CONFEDERATE States of America. They were trying to get back to the "pure" original US that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This mindset caused many headaches during the war as state governments could, and did, refuse to provide personnel/equipment/supplies when requested by the central government. I've wondered how long such a central government would have lasted had the Lincoln government acquiesced to the secession. Probably not very long.

Pro
Since you are from MI--who wins that prize--Detriot or people from the UP? I say MI is a USS state.

Doc Liberty:

Roe will never been overturned and even if it is, it won't mean a hill of beans. If Roe is overturned and goes to the states, the states where abortion is very restrictive as it is will outlaw it (Mississippi has one clinic that serves the entire state; SD has one clinic and has to fly in a doctor from MN--a few days a week to perform the service). There aren't pass laws in the US--if a doctor can fly to SD to perform abortons, women can fly to MN to have them.

The nuts (on both sides I will add) may make a big deal about Roe, but in reality it would have no effect--but helps in the fundraising.

reply to Akagi #19
Excellent reply! You've confirmed that you have no problem with slavery as a constitutionally legitimate policy for a state to choose and maintain. Certainly you're a real conservative.

And it's because you're a real conservative that I wondered whether you were also a WWII revisionist, along the lines, perhaps, of Pat Buchanan. It seems to me that conservatives can (and many have) work up a pretty good basis for opposition to US involvement in WWII. Such conservative notables as Richard Weaver (in "Ideas Have Consequences") and Russell Kirk (in various places) made clear their opposition to that war. Kirk tried energetically to avoid military service.

A further thought: Apart from conservative anti-Communism during the Cold War, American conservatives have often been notably unwarlike, opposing the American experiment in imperialism in the Spanish-American War and the conquest of the Philippines. Caught up in patriotic fervor, most conservatives support our war in Iraq and Afhanistan, largely due to neocon strategists who pulled Bush's strings.

AKAGI
First let me say I did not get my hat handed to me by democrats. There has been in this country, since the time of the Revolution a continual attempt at a national government to displace the states and put more power in people from the top down to dictate to the people, rather than having the people as free as possible to flourish. Hamilton, Madison off and on, John Marshall and many others waged war on the Constitution and the principles that led us to free ourselves from tyranny. This is what I am proposing solutions to, the continual attempt to dictate to people through government, a false morality that actually ruins peoples lives and puts fetters upon their rights, as opposed to protecting those rights. This is not some mere political battle to be won or lost, this is about self determination and the primacy of the individual, and seeking a way to more fully engage the battle. If you don't see the potential in mass relocation as having both political ramifications through changing the composition of certain states and preparing for what may be worse things coming down the road, then that's your limited thinking blinding you. What is your reason for coming to this site? To display your historical knowledge, or to engage with others for the good of this country?

Upland
If you read about it (I suggest "Look Away!), you'll see the idea of a collection of independent states was dead almost from the start--the national government instituted a draft, it conscripted men who the state governments had exempted, set limits on the acres cotton could be grown, and then got into the business of selling cotton, at the end promised to free slaves (private property)if they agreed to fight for the CSA and on and on.

Confederations can work--the EU, but not under the stress of being a brand new nation with little hard currency (just those it got from the New Orleans, Charlotte and Dahlonega mints), a newly minted military and a government more used to stopping things in their tracks than getting things done and many of the best and brightest were in the military and facing a determined enemy in the United States. Perhaps it could have worked if the US had decided not to wage war against it, but facing the US--you need a strong central government that can deal with that threat--and even that won't ensure you can defeat them--see Japan, Germany.


Gestell
As I told you before, I don't support his thesis that it was a mistake by France and the British Empire to declare war on Germany on the basis that Germany would then move to the Soviet Union (and both Stalin and Hitler would be destroyed in doing so). Churchill said that idea was like feeding the crocodile in the hopes it would eat you last.

Was it a good idea for the US to take sides in the Second Sino-Japanese War--probably not, but since it did so then there was no avoiding war--either the US had to become less hawkish on China (see Hull note) or Japan had to accept very unreasonable US demands (especially dealing with its relations with Germany and Italy)--neither were going to do so, so war then became inevitable.

Was slavery constitutional, it was in 1860 and besides, the US Constitution was moot at that point. Should a state engage in slavery--no. It isn't very wise from an economic point of view. You have to feed, house, clothe, give medical care to even those that are unproductive--the old, sick, the young. If you have a downturn, getting rid of surplus labor is difficult--you can sell them, but what if many do the same thing and you may find you are selling slaves for less than you paid for them. If you don't sell them you have to support those who aren't producing. When things improve and you need more labor, you now have to buy back slaves at higher prices--labor is very inflexible--very bad. If a slave dies in an accident--you lose the worth of the slave--if an Irish immigrant dies? Plenty more where she came from. Which gave rise in the west to the phrase "Chinaman's chance." Gestell--was McKinley and TR conservative or not?

AKAGI
Thanks for pointing out that slavery is a bad idea economically, I mean, WOW, now that I know that, I'm going to stop advocating it. I ask you again, what's your reason for being here, the good of others, or some mere desire to show off your learning. It's certainly far better to be an idiot who does good than to have all the knowledge in the world and have never lifted up your fellow man.

Lenard
"To display your historical knowledge, or to engage with others for the good of this country?"

For the good of the country? If TH vanished tomorrow it would have no effect on the United States--good or bad. No I don't come here to engage others for the good of the country, I come here for my own devices--mostly as an agent to break up the echo chamber that is TH.

Concentration of likeminded people would not have the effect you desire. As an example, look at the creation of majority-minority districts--drawing districts after the 1990 census to maximize Hispanic and black representation in Congress by pooling blacks from white districts into these new minority-majority districts. The result was more blacks and Hispanics in Congress--e.g.. Cynthia McKinney, but it also "bleached" other districts--turning white, moderate Democratic districts into white, conservative Republican districts and as a black voter this advanced your interests how?

If you followed your advice--those districts now represented by a member of the GOP such as the 46th would be represented by a Democrat--does this serve your interest to make Tennessee more Red (a state won by McCain) and California more blue (a state won by Obama)?

You could then try to form a country and break from the US, but last time that didn't work out so well.

Lenard
Gestell charged that conservatives (and he thinks I am one) support slavery. I was merely correcting him that while the Southern States had the right constitutionally and legally to hold slaves, that it was not an intelligent way to acquire labor.

Imparting knowledge does in fact lift your fellow man--putting proposals forward that are doomed to failure do not.

akagi
Merely your opinion, but somewhat contradicted by the existence of this country, which came about from those who sought something better than what they were living under. Knowledge is one thing and can be helpful, but it's not wisdom, and the chasm is deep and wide. Again, what is your purpose in life? Is it to better others? Will you advocate for others, and merely be an observer? Being an observer and learner is rather meaningless if those are only the ends and not the means of being equipped to do good unto and for others.

akagi
"I come here for my own devices--mostly as an agent to break up the echo chamber that is TH"

Wow, what a sad and lonely life you must lead.

Akagi
Re-read my posts once more. You're not grasping the concept at all. The Nevada ranchers would pick-up on the opportunity and expel the liberals in order to include their state in the new union. You forget that liberals are unarmed and want everyone else to be so.

And, by the way, any small bunch of country (or mountain) boys could destroy any street gang in very short order. You apparently have no street experience.

Pro
I don't know--lots of gun by "criminal" types in Las vegas--especially North Las Vegas. Not sure the boys from Elko and Goldfiend could do it. A rancher might have a 30.06 and the gang-bangers have some AK-47 or something.

The pro from dover
"Date: Feb 5, 2009 - 6:05 PM EST
Akagi
Re-read my posts once more. You're not grasping the concept at all. The Nevada ranchers would pick-up on the opportunity and expel the liberals in order to include their state in the new union. You forget that liberals are unarmed and want everyone else to be so."

You forget revolutions occur by taking the weapons from the decayed regime. Your folks seem to qualify as decayed

"...And, by the way, any small bunch of country (or mountain) boys could destroy any street gang in very short order. You apparently have no street experience."

I have lots and lots your country folk would not last a minute LMAO

reply to Akagi #5
I cannot possibly imporove upon your succinct statement in which the difference between conservatives and liberals is made abundantly clear:

You write: "Gestell charged that conservatives (and he thinks I am one) support slavery. I was merely correcting him that while the Southern States had the right constitutionally and legally to hold slaves, that it was not an intelligent way to acquire labor."

The notion that there can be a policy or action of government, or a social practice supported, ultimately, by the power of goernment that is constitutionally and legally right but morally wrong is certainly conservative. I await the comments of other right-wingers to see whether they have any problem with such a position. My guess is that they won't have much of a problem.

Perhaps the revolt against the Obama presidency, which genuine conservatives should be willing to foment, will bring Akagi's wish: a return to the Southern theory of the Constitution, and the secession of any state whose citizens instruct its government to accomplish. Then you conservatives can get slavery and all kinds of other expressions of moral primitivsm up and running again. Bring the Jubilee!


Gestell
"The notion that there can be a policy or action of government, or a social practice supported, ultimately, by the power of goernment that is constitutionally and legally right but morally wrong is certainly conservative."

And liberal as well--or must we forget Executive Order 9066 signed by the great liberal icon FDR and heavily pushed by another--Earl Warren. Yasui v. US (1943); Hirabayashi v. US (1943); Korematsu v. US (1944) ring a bell?

I forgot your standard--in war anything goes--war crimes, gross violations of human rights. In the wars your support anyway, I bet you don't give Bush the pass you give Lincoln and FDR.

Spare me the idiotic preamble which has no force of law--at the other Lincoln thread and your claims of secession was illegal, please point where in the Constiution it makes it so? Don't give me Texas v. White either--the majority of the court including the Chief Justice was appointed by Lincoln--one was his campaign manager. It can hardly be viewed as an objective decision.

p.s.
Gestell:

As for your claim in the Kemp thread of the moral virtues of the Union Army, tally up the war crimes done by the Union Army and then those by the Confederate Army--sure you have Fort Pillow and the like, but even Andersonville doesn't compare--Andersonville (Camp Sumpter--25% of prisoners died); Camp Douglas (Chicago) 50% of the prisoners died. Shall we go on--Roswell, New Manchester, Columbia? Food as a weapon of war, ethnic cleansing and on and on?

I might also advise these are waters you need not to venture in--you seem to have no clue about the war, Lincoln or anything else. Perhaps you should steam off to a topic you can actually command.

reply to Akagi #2
I'm still laughing at the very idea of such a thing as an "objective decision" by a court--any court, at any time, in any regime in human history. Do you really imagine that legal decisions are something like the testing of some scientific hypothesis? Since presidents do get to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court, the fact that these judges were appointed by Lincoln is irrelevant. The decision, like all court decisions on any significant issue, is a political decision--it cannot be anything else.

What you really want to say is that you don't agree with that court decision--therefore, it was a bad decision. That's all, and your position is also a political position.

As I said in earlier post, counting atrocities is a ploy. For every Union horror, there is a Confederate one. For every act of Federal brutality, one must surely---if one is to engage in such foollish calculations--count the violence used against slaves. My point is that this is a fruitless way to view history.

I do think you are that rarity among TH conservatives--a genuinely political conservative, who may come to understand that in the end, to quote the great coach Vince Lombardi--winning isn't everything, but losing isn't anything. Your beloved Confederates lost. If you want them to rise again, you have a very hard path ahead of you. Why not just listen to Rush Limbaugh and be happy in your right-wing self-contentment?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.