Confederate Monuments

[Julio3000]

Interesting. I would say the below statement is at least as accurate.

The idea that Sherman and Lincoln were gentlemen fighting the racist slaving south is the most heinous example of whitewashing.

I would also say that whitewashing is much easier for the winning side, since it typically controls the history class curriculum. At some point we need to judge these people based on how their contemporaries judged them. Very few men would have been able to accomplish anything of note while also jumping through all of the modern day morality/inclusivity/identity/pc/safe space hoops.

Certainly the same kind of superficial lionization of the Union cause and associated figures exists. There's also a mature body of scholarship that examines this and tries to put it in perspective, which we have the benefit of availing ourselves of, though we often decline to.

One can look at Lincoln and examine his writings about race and see that he was hardly progressive on that score. You can also weigh his historical contributions vs. those of, say, Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens, and draw some fairly obvious conclusions, though. Lincoln met with Frederick Douglass at the White House three times. The first time, Douglass was there for the express purpose of complaining about the inferior treatment of black soldiers in the Union Army. In subsequent visits, Lincoln put off a meeting with a close friend and ally so he could have "a long talk with my friend Frederick Douglass" (maybe he was the original "I'm not racist, I have black friends" guy), and once personally intervened when Douglass was denied entry by police.

So, if Lincoln would not hold up to the standards of those modern day hoops you mention (neither would Douglass, fwiw), how does he fare within the context of the time that he lived, and how does that compare with prominent Confederate leaders? You seem to suggest that the idea that slavery was abominable and immoral did not exist, and that the actual radical idea of racial equality did not exist.

What you wrote about the winners writing the history is both right and wrong. The winners, in this case, were the proponents of a political bargain that shafted black Americans and re-elevated white supremacy in the south.

 

[Julio3000]

I don't know what you are talking about, I'm just hagiographing Robert E. Lee.

True enough.

 

[zitothebrave]

Lee told his soldiers, once the invasion of Pennsylvania was under way, that "no greater disgrace could befall the army," or discredit the Confederate cause, "than the perpetuation of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country."

Actions speak louder than words is a proverb of almost any any culture throughout recorded history.

 

[zitothebrave]

Interesting. I would say the below statement is at least as accurate.

The idea that Sherman and Lincoln were gentlemen fighting the racist slaving south is the most heinous example of whitewashing.

I would also say that whitewashing is much easier for the winning side, since it typically controls the history class curriculum. At some point we need to judge these people based on how their contemporaries judged them. Very few men would have been able to accomplish anything of note while also jumping through all of the modern day morality/inclusivity/identity/pc/safe space hoops.

I don't think anyone said Sherman or Grant (as I presume that's what you're going after as the topic is generals) were gentleman. Grant was a ****ty person but a fantastic general for the Union. Same with Sherman. They beat the pants off the confederates in the western theater and then came around and beat the pants off the "invincible" Army of Virginia. The Union was marred by ****ty Generals of the Army of the Potomac namely McLelland who wouldn't go into battle without truly staggering numerical advantages allowing Lee to often outmaneuver him.

The war was basically fought for what you said. Though it wasn't the only reason, if the south didn't hold onto the antiquated slavery system and rage quit, there wouldn't have been a civil war.

 

[goldfly]

my family was personal friends of Sherman, have letters passed down generation to generation that Sherman wrote to my great great etc grandfather during the civil war

actually held one in my hand after my grandmother died. a couple places around here would like to put them in a museum.

that's all i got for now on the Sherman

 

[Jaw]

Certainly the same kind of superficial lionization of the Union cause and associated figures exists. There's also a mature body of scholarship that examines this and tries to put it in perspective, which we have the benefit of availing ourselves of, though we often decline to.

One can look at Lincoln and examine his writings about race and see that he was hardly progressive on that score. You can also weigh his historical contributions vs. those of, say, Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens, and draw some fairly obvious conclusions, though. Lincoln met with Frederick Douglass at the White House three times. The first time, Douglass was there for the express purpose of complaining about the inferior treatment of black soldiers in the Union Army. In subsequent visits, Lincoln put off a meeting with a close friend and ally so he could have "a long talk with my friend Frederick Douglass" (maybe he was the original "I'm not racist, I have black friends" guy), and once personally intervened when Douglass was denied entry by police.

So, if Lincoln would not hold up to the standards of those modern day hoops you mention (neither would Douglass, fwiw), how does he fare within the context of the time that he lived, and how does that compare with prominent Confederate leaders? You seem to suggest that the idea that slavery was abominable and immoral did not exist, and that the actual radical idea of racial equality did not exist.

What you wrote about the winners writing the history is both right and wrong. The winners, in this case, were the proponents of a political bargain that shafted black Americans and re-elevated white supremacy in the south.

I expect that Lincoln would be viewed as a terrible president and meh person had the Union lost (remember, Emancipation was only for the southern slaves), and that he would be viewed as a meh president and person had there not been a war. My reading, though limited, indicates that he became an abolitionist when it became a politically sound move for justifying a war that his side was losing at the time.
As for the actual view of Lincoln from his contemporaries, I think that is a difficult question to answer. He was President during a war that should have ended before it did, that probably didn't need to be fought, and that was far bloodier than anyone expected. We know he did a terrible job for years of picking generals. We know what the leaders of the southern half of the country thought of him. We know that other countries would have gladly sided with the South had it not been for slavery, so it's doubtful they had a good opinion of him. He certainly faced heavy criticism during the war over how it started and the cost in blood and treasure. The period after the war would have been more difficult and would have relied more on his leadership, but he wasn't around for that. I think his reputation gets a bump in modern times for what was known back then to be his disingenuous support of abolition, and of course it gets the "JFK" bump for his being assassinated.

I also need to admit now that I have done very little in the way of looking for what his contemporaries had to say about him prior to his death, so I may be unaware of reams of evidence invalidating everything I just said.

 

[zitothebrave]

(remember, Emancipation was only for the southern slaves).

Because that's all he could legally do. If the Union lost then there would have been an amendment to the constitution anyway.

My reading, though limited, indicates that he became an abolitionist when it became a politically sound move for justifying a war that his side was losing at the time.

Nope. While he wasn't technically an abolitionist in that he didn't follow/ignore the laws of slavery, Lincoln always thought slavery was morally wrong. He also knew it was legal and that the law was to be followed.

He was President during a war that should have ended before it did, that probably didn't need to be fought, and that was far bloodier than anyone expected.

2 of these statements were right. No one was really prepared for how bloody the war was going to be. In the North or South. It didn't need to be fought in the sense that the south shouldn't have seceded but chose to because they were a bunch of babies who were scared that Lincoln was going to get rid of slavery in new states admitted into the union and eventually it would be constitutionally mandated that it would be banned. Which of course happened post war anyway. A famous scene in Lincoln depicted that conversation in a more theatrical tone. As far as the ended, you're right. McClellan should have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia much earlier eliminated the banner for the south and the war would have ended in probably 2 years instead of 4. But tactically he was a coward and that's why we wound up here. Or if Lee had accepted Lincoln's offer to lead the Union, things would have been much different.

We know that other countries would have gladly sided with the South had it not been for slavery, so it's doubtful they had a good opinion of him

Nope, the countries you're talking about are France and Great Britain. They were only friendly with the south because of Cotton. Not because of not liking Lincoln.

The period after the war would have been more difficult and would have relied more on his leadership, but he wasn't around for that.

What the **** kind of stupid criticism is that? "If he wasn't assassinated he would have been there" jeez

I think his reputation gets a bump in modern times for what was known back then to be his disingenuous support of abolition, and of course it gets the "JFK" bump for his being assassinated.

Nope his reputation is that he was the president when the south tried to dissolve the union and he helmed the ship through the most bloody and tumultuous time in US history. The big 3 for most historians are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. THe reasons are Washington was the answer. After the colossal failure of the Articles of the Confederation, there was much doubt the US would even survive, and Washington took control and established that the Government was here and had power. Lincoln I just described, and FDR similar to Lincoln gets the nod because of guiding the US through the Depression and more importantly into and through World War II, the most vicious war ever fought.

 

[Jaw]

Because that's all he could legally do. If the Union lost then there would have been an amendment to the constitution anyway.

You are claiming that he legally could declare slaves free for part of the country but not the rest?

Nope. While he wasn't technically an abolitionist in that he didn't follow/ignore the laws of slavery, Lincoln always thought slavery was morally wrong. He also knew it was legal and that the law was to be followed.

He wasn't an abolitionist in that he had no intention of trying to end slavery. The fact that he became a political opportunist and "emancipated" the slaves in the states where he no longer had any authority doesn't change that.

Nope, the countries you're talking about are France and Great Britain. They were only friendly with the south because of Cotton. Not because of not liking Lincoln.

You believe that the 2 countries who had been the superpowers of the past couple of centuries only liked the Confederacy because of cotton? Great Britain and France both would have loved to side with the Confederacy so they could carve the new superpower, the US, in half. Neither did because of the Confederacy's stupid stance on slavery.

What the **** kind of stupid criticism is that? "If he wasn't assassinated he would have been there" jeez

??? Sometimes words just mean what the words mean. He would have had a chance to prove himself in more difficult circumstances after the war, when the outcome would have depended less on his ability to pick generals and more on his statesmanship and leadership. He did not get that chance, so it makes evaluating his performance more difficult. Small sample size if you will.

Nope his reputation is that he was the president when the south tried to dissolve the union and he helmed the ship through the most bloody and tumultuous time in US history. The big 3 for most historians are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. THe reasons are Washington was the answer. After the colossal failure of the Articles of the Confederation, there was much doubt the US would even survive, and Washington took control and established that the Government was here and had power. Lincoln I just described, and FDR similar to Lincoln gets the nod because of guiding the US through the Depression and more importantly into and through World War II, the most vicious war ever fought.

Okay, he was President during a civil war. So was Hugo Chavez. What else did Lincoln accomplish? He made a great speech, but it was empty words about how the slaves in another country were now free. A lot like a Trump speech about Mexico paying for the wall. Those are literally the only "accomplishments" I have ever heard of for Lincoln. Washington's achievements are obvious. FDR, while he certainly took the country far down the wrong path, is on the list for longevity and the sheer volume of impact he had during his longevity. Lincoln literally failed to convince seceding states to return peacefully, caused more states to leave by announcing he would invade the seceding states, ran a war poorly, and made an empty speech.

 

[Jaw]

So, if Lincoln would not hold up to the standards of those modern day hoops you mention (neither would Douglass, fwiw), how does he fare within the context of the time that he lived, and how does that compare with prominent Confederate leaders?

Julio, I found this article both interesting and relevant - https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/evidence-unpopular-mr-lincoln. More than anything, it reminds me of someone in the news a lot today.
A few pull quotes:

"He is evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis." ~ Edward Everett

"His speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness." ~Congressman Charles Adams

The Chicago Times, for example, branded the Emancipation Proclamation "a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide." An editorial in Columbus, Ohio's The Crisis asked, "Is not this a Death Blow to the Hope of Union?" and declared, "We have no doubt that this Proclamation seals the fate of this Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.… The time is brief when we shall have a DICTATOR PROCLAIMED, for the Proclamation can never be carried out except under the iron rule of the worst kind of despotism."

William O. Stoddard, the secretary in charge of reading Lincoln's mail, wrote: "[Dictator] is what the Opposition press and orators of all sizes are calling him. Witness, also, the litter on the floor and the heaped-up wastebaskets. There is no telling how many editors and how many other penmen within these past few days have undertaken to assure him that this is a war for the Union only, and that they never gave him any authority to run it as an Abolition war. They never, never told him that he might set the negroes free, and, now that he has done so, or futilely pretended to do so, he is a more unconstitutional tyrant and a more odious dictator than ever he was before. They tell him, however, that his …. venomous blow at the sacred liberty of white men to own black men is mere brutum fulmen [empty threat], and a dead letter and a poison which will not work. They tell him many other things, and, among them, they tell him that the army will fight no more, and that the hosts of the Union will indignantly disband rather than be sacrificed upon the bloody altar of fanatical Abolitionism."

A New York Herald correspondent attached to the Army of the Potomac felt its temper and feared for the Republic:

"The army is dissatisfied and the air is thick with revolution.... God knows what will be the consequence, but at present matters look dark indeed, and there is large promise of a fearful revolution which will sweep before it not only the administration but popular government."

Author and lawyer Richard Henry Dana, after a visit to Washington in February 1863, reported to Charles Francis Adams:

"As to the politics of Washington, the most striking thing is the absence of personal loyalty to the President. It does not exist. He has no admirers, no enthusiastic supporters, none to bet on his head. If a Republican convention were to be held to-morrow, he would not get the vote of a State."

Lincoln secured his renomination at the party convention in early June 1864, but there was no enthusiasm for him; he won by using the spoils system practice of stacking the party convention with appointees — delegates who owed their jobs to him. Attorney General Edward Bates noted in his diary, "The Baltimore Convention … has surprised and mortified me greatly. It did indeed nominate Mr. Lincoln, but … as if the object were to defeat their own nomination. They were all (nearly) instructed to vote for Mr. Lincoln, but many of them hated to do it …." The Chicago Times sneered that Lincoln could lay his hand on the shoulder of any one of the "wire-pullers and bottle-washers" in the convention hall and say, "This man is the creature of my will." James Gordon Bennett, in the columns of the New York Herald, declared, "The politicians have again chosen this Presidential pigmy as their nominee."

After Sherman's capture of Atlanta, a New York Republican had predicted, "No man was ever elected to an important office who will get so many unwilling and indifferent votes as L[incoln]. The cause takes the man along." Even after his reelection, plenty of Republicans were skeptical of Lincoln's contribution to the victory. According to Ohio Rep. Lewis D. Campbell, "Nothing but the undying attachment of our people to the Union has saved us from terrible disaster. Mr. Lincoln's popularity had nothing to do with it." Rep. Henry Winter Davis insisted that people had voted for Lincoln only "to keep out worse people — keeping their hands on the pit of the stomach the while!" He called Lincoln's reelection "the subordination of disgust to the necessities of a crisis." Of the seven presidential elections he had participated in, said Rep. George Julian, "I remember none in which the element of personal enthusiasm had a smaller share."

 

[Julio3000]

Julio, I found this article both interesting and relevant - https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/evidence-unpopular-mr-lincoln. More than anything, it reminds me of someone in the news a lot today.
A few pull quotes:

"He is evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis." ~ Edward Everett

"His speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness." ~Congressman Charles Adams

The Chicago Times, for example, branded the Emancipation Proclamation "a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide." An editorial in Columbus, Ohio's The Crisis asked, "Is not this a Death Blow to the Hope of Union?" and declared, "We have no doubt that this Proclamation seals the fate of this Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.… The time is brief when we shall have a DICTATOR PROCLAIMED, for the Proclamation can never be carried out except under the iron rule of the worst kind of despotism."

William O. Stoddard, the secretary in charge of reading Lincoln's mail, wrote: "[Dictator] is what the Opposition press and orators of all sizes are calling him. Witness, also, the litter on the floor and the heaped-up wastebaskets. There is no telling how many editors and how many other penmen within these past few days have undertaken to assure him that this is a war for the Union only, and that they never gave him any authority to run it as an Abolition war. They never, never told him that he might set the negroes free, and, now that he has done so, or futilely pretended to do so, he is a more unconstitutional tyrant and a more odious dictator than ever he was before. They tell him, however, that his …. venomous blow at the sacred liberty of white men to own black men is mere brutum fulmen [empty threat], and a dead letter and a poison which will not work. They tell him many other things, and, among them, they tell him that the army will fight no more, and that the hosts of the Union will indignantly disband rather than be sacrificed upon the bloody altar of fanatical Abolitionism."

A New York Herald correspondent attached to the Army of the Potomac felt its temper and feared for the Republic:

"The army is dissatisfied and the air is thick with revolution.... God knows what will be the consequence, but at present matters look dark indeed, and there is large promise of a fearful revolution which will sweep before it not only the administration but popular government."

Author and lawyer Richard Henry Dana, after a visit to Washington in February 1863, reported to Charles Francis Adams:

"As to the politics of Washington, the most striking thing is the absence of personal loyalty to the President. It does not exist. He has no admirers, no enthusiastic supporters, none to bet on his head. If a Republican convention were to be held to-morrow, he would not get the vote of a State."

Lincoln secured his renomination at the party convention in early June 1864, but there was no enthusiasm for him; he won by using the spoils system practice of stacking the party convention with appointees — delegates who owed their jobs to him. Attorney General Edward Bates noted in his diary, "The Baltimore Convention … has surprised and mortified me greatly. It did indeed nominate Mr. Lincoln, but … as if the object were to defeat their own nomination. They were all (nearly) instructed to vote for Mr. Lincoln, but many of them hated to do it …." The Chicago Times sneered that Lincoln could lay his hand on the shoulder of any one of the "wire-pullers and bottle-washers" in the convention hall and say, "This man is the creature of my will." James Gordon Bennett, in the columns of the New York Herald, declared, "The politicians have again chosen this Presidential pigmy as their nominee."

After Sherman's capture of Atlanta, a New York Republican had predicted, "No man was ever elected to an important office who will get so many unwilling and indifferent votes as L[incoln]. The cause takes the man along." Even after his reelection, plenty of Republicans were skeptical of Lincoln's contribution to the victory. According to Ohio Rep. Lewis D. Campbell, "Nothing but the undying attachment of our people to the Union has saved us from terrible disaster. Mr. Lincoln's popularity had nothing to do with it." Rep. Henry Winter Davis insisted that people had voted for Lincoln only "to keep out worse people — keeping their hands on the pit of the stomach the while!" He called Lincoln's reelection "the subordination of disgust to the necessities of a crisis." Of the seven presidential elections he had participated in, said Rep. George Julian, "I remember none in which the element of personal enthusiasm had a smaller share."

That's certainly worthwhile reading, but I not really referring to Lincoln's efficacy as a leader, but rather to how his ideas and conduct fared against those of his Confederate counterparts, even using the standards of the age, in contrast to your statement that we were applying modern standards to same.

 

[zitothebrave]

You are claiming that he legally could declare slaves free for part of the country but not the rest?

Yup, because the Confederacy was rebelling, under the war powers Lincoln had under the Constitution he could free the slaves. But he couldn't do it in the Union States or force states in the union who've abolished it to continue abolishing it. It's pretty simple if you've actually read anything about the Emancipation. Not to mention it was a brilliant gambit that absolutely insured Britain would play no part in the War.

He wasn't an abolitionist in that he had no intention of trying to end slavery. The fact that he became a political opportunist and "emancipated" the slaves in the states where he no longer had any authority doesn't change that.

That's a patent lie that shows a lack of knowledge of history.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620

The reason South Carolina seceded was Lincoln being elected.

While not the best source, it's easy reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

You believe that the 2 countries who had been the superpowers of the past couple of centuries only liked the Confederacy because of cotton? Great Britain and France both would have loved to side with the Confederacy so they could carve the new superpower, the US, in half. Neither did because of the Confederacy's stupid stance on slavery.

Lincoln threatened war on France if they intervened, Napoleon did not want to without the British(who also didn't want to be involved without the French), the British did not want to because of slavery and really couldn't after the Emancipation Proclamation. Again, the reason for this was Cotton. England and France were both manufacturing countries, they needed raw materials and both were known for their textile production, and because of such, they needed cotton. Again not the best source but easy reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_American_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War

??? Sometimes words just mean what the words mean. He would have had a chance to prove himself in more difficult circumstances after the war, when the outcome would have depended less on his ability to pick generals and more on his statesmanship and leadership. He did not get that chance, so it makes evaluating his performance more difficult. Small sample size if you will.

More difficult after the war? Winning the war was easier then reconstruction? Man I think I've heard it all. Lincoln by all accounts was an expert politician. He would have done way better than Johnson and likely would have redirected the nation in a totally different direction.

Okay, he was President during a civil war. So was Hugo Chavez. What else did Lincoln accomplish? He made a great speech, but it was empty words about how the slaves in another country were now free. A lot like a Trump speech about Mexico paying for the wall. Those are literally the only "accomplishments" I have ever heard of for Lincoln. Washington's achievements are obvious. FDR, while he certainly took the country far down the wrong path, is on the list for longevity and the sheer volume of impact he had during his longevity. Lincoln literally failed to convince seceding states to return peacefully, caused more states to leave by announcing he would invade the seceding states, ran a war poorly, and made an empty speech.

Yeah, this paragraph is just filled with bad logic. I'm not gonna debate this. Lincoln couldn't have talked them out of negotiating as the south had no desire to negotiate until their asses were kicked. Lincoln was sworn in March 4th 1961, by then 7 states had already seceded. So again, this wasn't a matter of Lincoln was a tyrant who chased the states away or whatever lie you were told. This was the 1860s version of a kid calling your mother a whore and rage quitting a videogame.

 

[Jaw]

Zito, there is no end to the *modern* history telling us about how great Lincoln was. That sort of revisionism is kind of the whole point of this thread. Documentation from the actual time period doesn't seem to back it up.

Yup, because the Confederacy was rebelling, under the war powers Lincoln had under the Constitution he could free the slaves. But he couldn't do it in the Union States or force states in the union who've abolished it to continue abolishing it. It's pretty simple if you've actually read anything about the Emancipation. Not to mention it was a brilliant gambit that absolutely insured Britain would play no part in the War.

Pre-revision history seems to disagree with you:
The Chicago Times, for example, branded the Emancipation Proclamation "a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide." An editorial in Columbus, Ohio's The Crisis asked, "Is not this a Death Blow to the Hope of Union?" and declared, "We have no doubt that this Proclamation seals the fate of this Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.… The time is brief when we shall have a DICTATOR PROCLAIMED, for the Proclamation can never be carried out except under the iron rule of the worst kind of despotism."

That's a patent lie that shows a lack of knowledge of history.

Lincoln seems to disagree with you: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Emancipation was never his motivation, it was always preservation of the Union.

Lincoln threatened war on France if they intervened, Napoleon did not want to without the British(who also didn't want to be involved without the French), the British did not want to because of slavery and really couldn't after the Emancipation Proclamation. Again, the reason for this was Cotton. England and France were both manufacturing countries, they needed raw materials and both were known for their textile production, and because of such, they needed cotton. Again not the best source but easy reading.

Yes, they liked cotton. Got it. There are plenty of links to back up your theory and mine. It seems that both were compelling.

More difficult after the war? Winning the war was easier then reconstruction? Man I think I've heard it all.

Ahem. Yes, post war reconstruction typically is more difficult:

Lincoln by all accounts was an expert politician.

Once again, from the post above yours:
Author and lawyer Richard Henry Dana, after a visit to Washington in February 1863, reported to Charles Francis Adams:

"As to the politics of Washington, the most striking thing is the absence of personal loyalty to the President. It does not exist. He has no admirers, no enthusiastic supporters, none to bet on his head. If a Republican convention were to be held to-morrow, he would not get the vote of a State."

Lincoln secured his renomination at the party convention in early June 1864, but there was no enthusiasm for him; he won by using the spoils system practice of stacking the party convention with appointees — delegates who owed their jobs to him. Attorney General Edward Bates noted in his diary, "The Baltimore Convention … has surprised and mortified me greatly. It did indeed nominate Mr. Lincoln, but … as if the object were to defeat their own nomination. They were all (nearly) instructed to vote for Mr. Lincoln, but many of them hated to do it …." The Chicago Times sneered that Lincoln could lay his hand on the shoulder of any one of the "wire-pullers and bottle-washers" in the convention hall and say, "This man is the creature of my will." James Gordon Bennett, in the columns of the New York Herald, declared, "The politicians have again chosen this Presidential pigmy as their nominee."

After Sherman's capture of Atlanta, a New York Republican had predicted, "No man was ever elected to an important office who will get so many unwilling and indifferent votes as L[incoln]. The cause takes the man along." Even after his reelection, plenty of Republicans were skeptical of Lincoln's contribution to the victory. According to Ohio Rep. Lewis D. Campbell, "Nothing but the undying attachment of our people to the Union has saved us from terrible disaster. Mr. Lincoln's popularity had nothing to do with it." Rep. Henry Winter Davis insisted that people had voted for Lincoln only "to keep out worse people — keeping their hands on the pit of the stomach the while!" He called Lincoln's reelection "the subordination of disgust to the necessities of a crisis." Of the seven presidential elections he had participated in, said Rep. George Julian, "I remember none in which the element of personal enthusiasm had a smaller share."


Expert politician.

I'm not gonna debate this. Lincoln couldn't have talked them out of negotiating as the south had no desire to negotiate until their asses were kicked. Lincoln was sworn in March 4th 1961, by then 7 states had already seceded.So again, this wasn't a matter of Lincoln was a tyrant who chased the states away or whatever lie you were told.

Dude. The secession consisted of 7 states until old Abe decided to draft militia to invade them, and then Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee left. So yeah, instead of pursuing a peaceful resolution he decided to squash the secession (not rebellion) with lead, powder, fire, and blood. At which point he chased 4 states away.

Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.

— Respectfully, John Letcher
Wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War

North Carolina's fate was sealed on April 12, 1861, when troops in South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter as the Union was attempting to resupply the garrison there. President Lincoln called for volunteers from every state still in the Union to "put down the rebellion." With that call for troops, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee left the Union, refusing to bear arms against their fellow southerners.

http://civilwarexperience.ncdcr.gov/narrative/narrative-1.htm

 

[Julio3000]

Totally-not-racist-history-buff sues to restore Confederate flag to SC courtroom, uses racial slur.

[tw]900725436556161024[/tw]

 

[Hawk]

Totally-not-racist-history-buff sues to restore Confederate flag to SC courtroom, uses racial slur.

[tw]900725436556161024[/tw]

Holy Freudian slip.

 

[Julio3000]

Definitely a Freudian slip, but also sadly a common nickname for Dr. King in certain circles. So, like, pretty sure it's not the first time he's ever said it.

 

[sturg33]

Which one do you think thinks for himself and which one do you think is manipulated by media

 

[thethe]

Which one do you think thinks for himself and which one do you think is manipulated by media

White guilt is amusing.

That guy probably goes back to his 97% white community.

 

[Krgrecw]

White guilt is amusing.

That guy probably goes back to his 97% white community.

97% white community

97% white co-workers

And 97% white friends

 

[Runnin]

Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede. Been running for 30 years. Anybody seen it?



At Dolly Parton’s Civil War–themed dinner theater, audiences root for the North or the South. I saw it twice, because you gotta see both sides.

By Aisha Harris





The same week that a statue of Robert E. Lee led to the death of an innocent woman in Charlottesville, Virginia, I watched him oink and squeal in a race for the fate of the country. Lee, this time, was a piglet—part of Dolly Parton’s Dixie Stampede, a Medieval Times–style dine-in attraction where seven nights a week and at occasional weekend matinees, the South rises again.

Advertised as an “extraordinary dinner show … pitting North against South in a friendly and fun rivalry,” Dolly Parton’s Dixie Stampede is the Lost Cause of the Confederacy meets Cirque du Soleil. It’s a lily-white kitsch extravaganza that play-acts the Civil War but never once mentions slavery. Instead, it romanticizes the old South, with generous portions of both corn on the cob and Southern belles festooned in Christmas lights. At its sister staging in Branson, Missouri (the original is up the road from Dollywood in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee), it’s put on at a venue that can only be described as resembling a plantation mansion. Also, everyone in the audience must pick a side.

 

[Hawk]

Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede. Been running for 30 years. Anybody seen it?

I saw it when I was a child, back when the show was running in Myrtle Beach. I don't recall which 'side' my family sat on, but I do remember my Mom being selected - much against her will - to participate in some challenge where she had to run carrying big wooden buckets of water. She was wearing a denim dress (hello, 1995) and stopped half-way to hike it up, which drew massive applause.

We went to go see Medieval Times a few summers later and I found it comparatively boring. Also, the food was not nearly as good.