About Jim Webb and that alleged "Confederate Affinity"

[leftofcool]

I don't think it exists. For Senator Webb and people like him, it is more about understanding the deep seated issues on both sides of that war. It is knowing that while Abe Lincoln was a great president in many ways, he had two faces, the good guy face and the asshole face. It is understanding that right or wrong, Lee was one of the greatest generals in American history and Grant had alcohol issues. It is understanding that atrocities were committed on both sides. It is the in depth research of battle tactics and military maneuvers on both sides. It is being pleasantly surprised at the number of women, both North and South, who disguised themselves as men and joined the fighting. It is understanding that good men who never owned slaves or saw slaves died uner the Confederate flag but that same flag has become something sinister and symbolic of an evil thas should never have been, and should be banned from all state and federal properties. It is knowing that the main goal of re-enactors is to keep that part of American history alive and in our minds so we will never have another Civil War in this country.

What Jim Webb thinks or thought at one time about women in the military really stems from that old Southern thinking, that women are simply Southern Belles and need to be protected. I doubt he feels that way today and if he does, he wouldn't admit it. The only problem I see is that he is another Junior Senator who won Virginia by a very slim margin. Other than that, I think he would make a fine VP for Obama.

Left of Cool

[enough]

1. I recommend this profile of Webb by Elizabeth Drew at the New York Review of Books.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21530

Drew is a veteran political reporter/analyst. Her picture of Webb is interesting and more complex than usual in the media.

The first two paragraphs:

The Jim Webb Story
By Elizabeth Drew
A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America
by Jim Webb

Broadway Books, 255 pp., $24.95

Jim Webb, the junior senator from Virginia, who defeated the incumbent Republican George Allen in 2006, is or has been: a best-selling author; a screenwriter (Rules of Engagement, and another in the works); an Emmy-winning documentary producer; the author of a large number of articles and book reviews; an Annapolis graduate; a boxer (he lost a legendary and controversial championship match at Annapolis against Oliver North<1> ); an autodidact who grew up a military man's son and indifferent student but on his own became a passionate reader of history; a first lieutenant and Marine rifle platoon commander with Delta Company in Vietnam, where he won the Navy Cross for heroism (the second-highest award in the Navy and the Marines), the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts; a graduate of Georgetown Law School who then worked on the staff of the House Veterans Affairs Committee; a teacher of English literature at the Naval Academy; and an assistant secretary of defense and then secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration. Webb resigned from that position after losing a long battle to block a reduction in the size of the Navy at a time when the Pentagon was under orders to cut its budget. In The Reagan Diaries, the former president wrote, "I don't think Navy was sorry to see him go."

Webb is a serious writer, not a politician who writes books on the side. His first book, Fields of Fire, published in 1978, when Webb was thirty-two, is a sweeping, unflinching novel about Vietnam featuring two of life's losers who signed up for lack of anything else to do. It conveys with stark vividness, and also a touch of farce, the stench, the filth, the fear, and the bewildering unexpectedness of fighting an elusive enemy in a jungle. Fields of Fire has often been called the best book about Vietnam and likened to the war writing of Norman Mailer and Stephen Crane.

much more>

[papau]

27. Webb's only political fault - besides love of Reagan - is the History of sexism - albeit 20 yrs old

[pnwmom]

91. Closer to 30 years really. His opinion then, which he has since repudiated,

was very mainstream in 1979.

[JimGinPA]

2. I'd Like To Hear More About Lincoln's "Asshole Face"...

Could you educate me please?

[leftofcool]

3. A couple of thing some to mind here

He suspended the writ of HC, he also stopped and refused to do any more prisoner exchanges with the South, thus resulting in the tragedy at Andersonville. While Wirz was hanged for it, it was Lincoln's poor judgement that it happened. He was also responsible for having Sherman ride through the south burning crops so many southern women and children starved to death because the crops were all they had. There are several books, actually scads of books on Lincoln. Most of them are quite interesting.

[40ozDonkey]

9. Do you know WHY Lincoln stopped trading prisoners?

Because African American soldiers were not being treated as prisoners, they were being executed if they were captured. Lincoln demanded that black soldiers be treated as prisoners of war and the south REFUSED. The massacre of black soldiers who had already thrown down their weapons and surrendered was the basis for his decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pillow

Henry Wirz was a mean spirited son of a bitch who HATED the Union forces, if he had half the humanity of Clara Barton, Andersonville's prisoners would've had a far lower mortality rate. They were supposed to be fed the same as Confederate soldiers, but Wirz gave them a handful of rancid grain and a spoonful of peas.
Murdering Union soldiers by slow starvation wasn't Lincoln's fault or even related to Lincoln in any way. That was a conscious decision to slow murder made by Henry Wirz and enforced by Confederate soldiers who's humanity was sorely lacking if they witnessed this atrocity and said NOTHING.

Furthermore,

Sherman's ride through the south was necessary.

1) It gave the North a victory that couldn't be denied by spineless northern politicians who were tired of the war and wanted to concede to the racist slave-holding south.
2) It took away all will and vigor for continuing the fight. Sherman himself said, "Where were your loud protestations when railroads through your own towns carried cannon, rifles, and shot used against Union soldiers?" Confederates were all about that fucking war until they realized how terrible war could be, and if Sherman hadn't broken their back in Georgia the war would've gone on longer.
3) Sherman's army was covering great distances and in hostile territory. That means it was a scavenging army. If they wanted to move with the speed required to achieve their objective then they needed to scrounge and yes, LOOT as much as they could in order to survive to the next month. The reason the countryside was picked clean was because Sherman wasn't interested not achieving his objective or giving his own soldiers the Henry Wirz treatment.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. I just posted the same thing.The south refused to recognize a significant segment of the Union army

and it's Lincoln's fault that negotiations broke down.

[40ozDonkey]

19. Right on, except you did it better than I.

I don't have a problem with Webb's view specifically, but it seems some people took it upon themselves to expound further on what Webb was saying.
That's fine too, until the they start re-writing history.

I'm gonna get out of this thread, nothing pisses me off more than the honor we do to one of the most despicable and embarrassing chapters in American history. I just don't see anything gallant in treason, especially for the reasons listed in the south's articles of secession.

[invictus]

89. I agree. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. The prisoner exchange system broke down because the Confederacy refused to recognize black soldiers

as prisoner of war and neither should their white commanders. They threatened execution. The North retaliated by declaring for every one of their soldiers killed, a confederate soldier would be killed (he later backed off this). It wasn't until the confederacy was beginning to suffer heavy losses that they requested that prisoner trade resume and at this point, it was not strategically favorable for Grant to agree.

So to say that Lincoln is responsible for Andersonville is a GROSS simplification.

[sofa king]

33. Just to clarify....

The prisoner exchange system originated as an informal network of exchanges usually negotiated between individual officers on both sides (the professional officer corps in the United States was so small that virtually all officers serving prior to the Civil war were known to one another). A more formalized system was initiated in 1862, and it was that system which broke down in early 1864.

However, as soon as the "official" system broke down, the informal system of exchange immediately went back into operation, and by early 1865 the Confederate States negotiated a return of the official system of exchange. Interestingly, General Lee and General Grant actually corresponded directly with one another over the issue during the Siege of Petersburg in November, 1864.

I don't think one should read too much into the Confederate change in position in 1865; it was clearly a move of desperation and not representative of a major change in policy. Similarly, the United States, having weathered an election year and seeing the prospect of victory as soon as the weather cleared, was amenable to the official exchanges primarily because they were again expedient. By then the United States was holding so many more Confederate prisoners that they were able to set a very favorable exchange ratio, which made the proposition attractive again.

The career of Edward "Allegheny" Johnson serves as a good example. A divisional commander of the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia (C.S.), Johnson along with much of his division was captured at the "Bloody Angle" of Spotsylvania Courthouse, on the morning of May 12 1864. Before noon, he was having breakfast with his friend Seth Williams, the Inspector General of the Army of the Potomac (U.S.).

By early August 1864 Johnson was repatriated, though the official system was still suspended, and by December 1864 he was captured again in Nashville. This time he sat out the rest of the war, even though the official system was reinstated shortly after his capture.

The point being that Lincoln's control of the prisoner exchange system was tenuous at best, subject to independent modification both by the enemy and by his own officer corps. So I agree with SCQ's position that holding Lincoln responsible is a simplification that does more to obscure than illuminate.

Edit: I should add that that the information on Johnson's interesting morning comes from Douglas Southall Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants, Vol. 3, pp. 396-409. Douglas in turn cites the military autobiography of McHenry Howard, who was also captured on May 12 and who was also exchanged in November, 1864, which suggests that the correspondence between Lee and Grant that month may have had more results than officially acknowledged.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. Yeah, suspension of habeus corpus is something I'm sure we would be rightfully upset at.

I think that he still is probably the greatest president in American History due to unprecedented crisis he had to deal with from basically day one of his presidency until the last day of his presidency on his death bed.

But I do take major exception to the suspension of habeus corpus, even in a time of war.

[Yupster]

20. His running for president as a purely regional candidate was

certainly no help to the situation.

Today the president is elected in Novemeber and inaugrated in January. Back then it was November - March. During that crucial period, his actions were awful. The seven deep southern states had left the union. Eight other slave states were deciding wherther to eave or not. Among them werer Virginia and North Carolina. Tennessee had held a vote on whether to hold a secession convention and barely voted no. So where did Lincoln spend this period? Was he in the border states rallying the considerable pro-union populations in Tenessee, Virginia and North Carolina? No - he never set foot down there. He was holding victory rallies in Boston and Buffalo and other northern cities.

A Senator Crittenden of Kentucky had created a group ofsenators named after himself to work through Christmas to find a compromise to keep the south in the union. At that point only S Carolina had left. On the committee were many of the best known senators including William Seward and Jefferson Davis. The committee failed because Seward, representing the Republicans said he wouldn't act without instructions from the President-elect, and Lincoln made it clear he would offer no suggestions, get involved with or even monitor the committee's dealings.

Then Lincoln made the biggest blundr a new president ever made. He called forth the militias (unconstitutionally) and gave each state a quota of soldiers to provide to invade the new Confederacy. Tennessee was so outraged they called another vote and voted 80-20 to leave the union. So did Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas. With that one blunder, Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart were all lost from the union army with thousands more. Now the Confederacy was strong enough to put up a fight.


That was some of Lincoln's asshole face.

And that's not even getting into "the man without a country", an anti-war politician from Ohio who had a movie made about him.

[JimGinPA]

85. I'm Reading 'Team Of Rivals' Right Now...

It takes exception with your "running for president as a purely regional candidate" argument, his maneuvering to hold the convention in Chicago notwithstanding. Also pages 296-297 gives a completely different account of "The Crittenden Compromise" than what you posted. The book also differs with some of the other "facts" of your post, such as those rallies actually being held during his train trip to Washington, as he remained in Springfield from before the election until he left for the last time ever, to be sworn in. Of course, I haven't done a considerable lot of research on Lincoln since I left school years ago.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. He probably would've been assassinated before his inauguration if he went to Tennessee and Virginia

[MyNameGoesHere]

113. Well if you maybe did some research some of these gems would

make you wonder wtf?

"I have no desire to see blacks integrated into white society as they could never be taught to be of equal intelligence of compare the white man. A black does not have the inherent intelligence of a white man. But I find myself needing to free black not as a matter of emancipation, but to cripple the Southern Economy to put a quick end to this war which has divided and crippled this nation."

yes from the great emancipators very lips.

[eShirl]

4. "...right or wrong, Lee was one of the greatest generals in American history"

The same could be said of Benedict Arnold.

[uponit7771]

12. Unn, I can understand what he's saying though. He's NOT praising the basis of the fight from the ..

...confederacy just the soldiers.

[40ozDonkey]

15. Exactly.

Lee wasn't the greatest general, he just understood what he needed to do and had the ability to read the opposition's intent.

You know how Grant beat Lee? He wouldn't retreat after defeat. Pretty anti-climactic way to defeat "the Marble Man", dontcha think?

I don't think Lee was so great as the Northern generals who faced him were just so fucking hapless.

[ieoeja]

31. Lee was one of the America's greatest generals NOT in the field.

Lee was the one who built the Confederate Army from scratch. That is a metric for judging Lee where he comes out pretty good. Most people would probably say that Omar Bradley was a better general overall than Patton. Patton was better at fighting a battle, but not necessarily at all the other aspects of being a general.

As to fighting, you are 100% correct. Lee was best of a poor bunch. They were using 18th century tactics with 19th century weaponry.

[kwassa]

36. Lee botched Gettysburg, too.

Pickett's Charge.

[leftofcool]

50. Yes, he did do that

[whistler162]

49. Not quite from scratch...

since a large chunk of the good US officers where from the South and many went with the South. Southern politicians also ensured that many of the Federal armories in the South where under the control of Southern sympathizers so when Succession occurred the armories and contents went with the South. So the base of Lee's and Johnston's armies, the officer and NCO corp, was more experienced than the Union had availalbe at the start.

[Thothmes]

92. No he did not build the "Confederate Army" from Scratch

He commanded the Army of Norther Virginia. He was appointed to Army command after General Johnson was wounded during the Seven Days battles near Richmond. He steadfastly turned down the offer of Commanding all Confederate armies.

[Zomby Woof]

123. What a horrible comparison

Robert E. Lee was as loyal an American as the nation ever produced. Virginia was Lee's country. In his time, the states, especially in the south, but also in the north, were of supreme importance when it came to one's sense of home, honor, and patriotism. This tired and ignorant mantra that the Confederate soldiers and sailors were "traitors" is just malignant libel. Remember, the Tories said the same thing of the colonists who dared secede from Mother England. The Confederacy sought to make the same break, on sound legal principles.

The south waged what it saw as the Second War of Independence. It saw the principles of the 10th amendment and gross misuse of federal power at stake. It was a commonly accepted doctrine at the time that none of the states would have ratified the constitution to join the union, if they couldn't step out when the federal government no longer held up its end of the deal. Secession was a measure of last resort, and not to be taken lightly, but it was not prohibited explicitly in the founding document. It would have never been attempted if there was not a sound legal argument to construct.

Agree or disagree with Lee, the soldiers, the citizens, rich or poor, or the legal ramifications and so forth - all you like, but the rank and file on both sides of the conflict were men and women of honor, and the southerners were not traitors. Lee was a patriot who wrestled mightily with his decision, deciding with his heart as well as his head. To compare him with a callow opportunist like Arnold is vile and intellectually dishonest in the worst way.

Author Shelby Foote reminded us, the most succinct reason given for why the Confederate soldier fought was one who said, "I'm fighting because you're down here."

As for others whose Civil War education was warped by "right-thinking" ideologues, I remind you that federal law was amended in 1913 giving the Confederate soldier the exact same veteran status as all other American veterans, of all past wars. So if you slap the "traitor" label on them, you slap it on all veterans. Jim Webb, who knows much about military history, and the American principle of citizen-soldiery, put just the correct amount of emphasis and understanding on the valor and honor of the Confederate soldier. It was a brilliant speech.

[jody]

5. A fact oft ignored is that some blacks fought with the Confederate and to recognize that fact, one

is portrayed on the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, see picture below.

More re the memorial at http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/csa-mem.htm and http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net/Articles/Places/arlington.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. And your point here is what?

That some african americans liked being slaves?

[jody]

39. The OP talked about Lincoln's "asshole face", facts that are typically ignored in classes taught on

the Civil War.

I added another fact ignored in such classes.

You can ignore it if you will but it's still a fact.

Thomas Gray wrote "Where ignorance is bliss, / ‘Tis folly to be wise.’".

Have a blissful day. :hi:

[kwassa]

21. Revisionist nonsense. Where does this crap come from ?

Blacks fighting for the Confederacy. Puh-Leeese.

This is like a viral email.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. Some were forced into service. I don't understand what the point of referring to this is.

Other than "It wasn't really so bad...they liked it!"

[jody]

40. See #39. Have a blissful day. n/t

[kwassa]

44. Where is any evidence of your assertion? Have any?

Aside from neo-confederate revisionist websites?

[jody]

47. google { black confederate "civil war"} and read for yourself. As a side note, I just visited the

Beaufort National Cemetery in which are 16 graves of members of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, the troops featured in the 1989 movie "Glory".

Denzel Washington won an Academy Award for his performance in the movie.

There are also 56 graves of the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, another black unit but they were not involved in the attack on Fort Wagner.

It was a moving experience on Memorial Day.

[kwassa]

54. I've already done that.

And the black Union regiments I already know about.

Those sites are not peer-reviewed historical information, just neo-confederate garbage.

[jody]

58. I've read your other posts and you have a closed mind re the war between the states. Goodbye. n/t

[kwassa]

68. My mind is open, you simply need standards for evidence.

[S_E_Fudd]

41. It is also historically accurate...

Numbers were small, but a not trivial number of blacks did sign up to fight for the confederacy...and were promised their freedom after the war...

You find that inconceivable...yet the fact the many African Americans fought for the Continental Army despite their servitude doesn't?

The British were offereing blanket freedom fo any slave that signed up with them...

Yet many more fought with the American Army...

[kwassa]

43. What reputable source do you have on the subject?

Peer-reviewed?

[S_E_Fudd]

46. I have studied the topic...

I have a Masters in American History, and have studied American slavery fairly extensively both before and during the war, as well as the post-slavery reconstruction period...

If you are truly interested I would be happy to gather together citations fo you to look at...if you are interested...

[kwassa]

55. Please do.

I would be happy to take a look.

[S_E_Fudd]

45. self delete

wrong place

[Terran]

59. Were these free blacks enlisting in the CSA army?

Because I read that the no slaves were allowed in the CSA's army until 1865; and Lee wanted to have them freed in exchange for their service, but the Confederate Congress refused to pass that part of the measure allowing blacks to be soldiers.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2134

I find it difficult to believe that any free black man voluntarily served as an 'active duty' soldier on the Confederate side. Many were dragged along, I'm sure, to shine the shoes of officers and cook meals and such.

I'd also be interested to see links to peer-reviewed studies that prove there were free black men fighting for the Confederacy.

[S_E_Fudd]

64. Exactly...

Very very few before 1865...

I didn't realize the conversation was focused on earlier in the war. Certainly after the confederate congress opened up the ranks to blacks in March 1865 (General Order 14), ex-slaves did enlist, and several companies were raised. Few if any saw action before the war ended however...

[kwassa]

122. where is your evidence of this?

[whistler162]

48. No this is history...

http://www.jackmaples.com/black_confederates/diaries.html

do a search on diary negro confederate soldier for more information.

Remember not all blacks in the South where slaves and to the common soldier, officers included, the reason for fighting the North was states rights verses a central federal control.

[kwassa]

56. No, the cause of the Civil War was slavery.

The only state's right that was in question was the right to hold slaves. Nothing else.

"Black confederates" isn't history, it is a internet phenomenon by those that wish to justify the false cause of the South.

[BryMan]

106. No.

The states rights question was about the right to sell cotton directly to Europe which was being denied by the federal government. The textile mills were located in the far North, and feared being cut off from the cheap source of supply they knew would be worth more by selling directly to Europe.

[kwassa]

111. another revisionist

read and learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War was slavery, especially the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.<1> Other important factors were party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.

(jump)

Historians today generally agree that economic conflicts were not a major cause of the war. While an economic basis to the sectional crisis was popular among the “Progressive school” of historians from the 1910s to the 1940s, few “professional historians now subscribe” to this explanation.<11> According to economic historian Lee A. Craig, "In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War."<12> When numerous groups tried at the last minute in 1860-61 to find a compromise to avert war, they did not turn to economic policies. The three major attempts at compromise, the Crittenden Compromise, the Corwin Amendment, and the Washington Peace Conference, addressed only the slavery related issues of fugitive slave laws, personal liberty laws, slavery in the territories, and interference with slavery within the existing slave states.<13>

[BryMan]

114. Revisionist no, not at all.

Expansion of slavery into new states and territiories was one reason, and the biggest spark, I do not disagree with that.

But maybe you by not reviewing what you pasted there in the first 2 sentences should take your own advice.

I was simply stating that slavery was not the only issue as you were asserting, so yes you need to revise your own statement that I replied to.

You also need to know I don't take kindly to your labeling someone you don't fucking know a thing about.

Also lastly, historians of the last few decades have let left/right politics invade academia to a point it makes me sick. History should be looked upon without personal politics being applied.

[kwassa]

121. look at your own words

"I was simply stating that slavery was not the only issue as you were asserting, so yes you need to revise your own statement that I replied to."

No, that is not what you were doing. Just to remind you, this is what you said.

"The states rights question was about the right to sell cotton directly to Europe which was being denied by the federal government. The textile mills were located in the far North, and feared being cut off from the cheap source of supply they knew would be worth more by selling directly to Europe."

There is nothing in this answer that even suggests slavery is an issue, and/or a state's rights issue.

[Hugabear]

129. That is a revisionist lie

Is that what you really think it was about?

BULLSHIT.

You can doctor it up all you want, but the bottom line is that the Confederacy was fighting to preserve their right to continue slavery. All these other issues are merely offshoots of that larger issue.

[Hugabear]

78. Exactly - states rights to OWN SLAVES

That's the only fucking states rights they really cared about. The average soldier didn't understand anything about embargoes, tariffs, trade, etc. But they did understand slavery.

Slavery was ALWAYS the foremost issue with the southern states. All this other crap, ie embargoes, was simply window dressing.

[Zomby Woof]

125. Lincoln understood the distinction

He knew that slavery was morally wrong, but not legally wrong. If we are a nation of laws, and not people, then it's inarguable that the south had a legal basis for waging a war for independence. Lincoln decided much later, as a political move, to make it a war about slavery, but that is not how it started.

At war's beginning, the Union soldiers would have scoffed mightily at the idea it was about slavery, or abolition. They fought to keep the union together, and that was in essence, Lincoln's rationale. He suspended habeas corpus, and sent agents out in the middle of the night to round up 'dissidents'. He ignored the constitution where it suited his objective - preserving the union. As he stated, if he could have done it by keeping slavery, he would have done so. Only when the threat of British intervention on behalf of the Confederacy loomed, did he change strategy, and put slavery in the forefront of the causes. Hence, the politically brilliant but legally non-binding Emancipation Proclamation, which did nothing to free slaves in the border states, or in the Union states where it was still semi-covertly accepted. (New Jersey, for example, had quite a large number of slaveowners in comparison to most areas of the border states).

The 13th amendment was the legal end of slavery, not the Emancipation Proclamation. But the victors write history, and they have gotten away with a major misconception for years - on both ends of the war.

[BryMan]

105. You need to do some history work.

Some estimates (since the CSA didn't keep very good records) have the number of black soldiers (and yes soldiers under arms not slaves) at 30-60K.

Infact, something that has been scrubbed from history is the strange occurance of black soldiers in Picketts charge and the shock it made upon Union troops at the Angle (NC units under Pettigrew's command Scales, and Lane's brigades).

50 years after the battle at Gettysburg remaining soldiers of the battle showed up in remembrance including one black CSA soldier, and he was refused a room at a hotel in the town and instead was welcomed into the CSA veterans tent camp.

So before you choke down the history written by the winners remember the winners don't always tell the truth. It's like passing high fructose corn syrup off as sugar, taste sweet all the same but isn't the real thing.

[kwassa]

115. Speaking of nonsense

"Some estimates (since the CSA didn't keep very good records) have the number of black soldiers (and yes soldiers under arms not slaves) at 30-60K"

The notion is absurd on it's very face. The Confederate Army never put slaves under arms.

Neo-Confederate revisionism. Actually, just plain lies.

[BryMan]

116. Think what you want

I never said slaves did I? You can't process simple words.

Being rude, and throwing around accusations seems to be all you are capable of. I even provided some evidence of division commands, and brigade commands for you to research to shoot down, but no you just handiwipe with your response and thats all thats needed eh? You have nothing, and you know it apparently.

If I'm wrong fucking prove it, I'm tired of your labeling shit now, either fucking prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

Neo-crap nothingism is not a rebuttal either.

[kwassa]

120. You have no proof.

You have no sources. Naming a particular command isn't proof of anything. Give me sources peer-reviewed by reputable historians supporting this belief.

The premise, which is yours, and unproven, and quite ridiculous, is that blacks voluntarily fought for the South. It is your premise to prove, not mine to disprove. It so defies common sense, and history that it is truly laughable, except that it is a persistent lie that has found voice on the Internet, much like the emails that Obama is a Muslim radical. In the larger scheme of things, it is part and parcel of the neo-confederate attempt to re-write historical fact with fantasies about the Lost Cause.

This thesis of yours is quite illogical, along the lines of Jews volunteering for the SS.

This is why I mock your argument.

[BryMan]

124. Alotta talk for not a damn thing offered

Yeah, go ahead prove nothing, you are getting good at that. Really good at repeating lines as well, how many times have you now used the Jews SS analogy? Yet you yourself have nothing to refute me, not shit, nothing but semantic BS.

"It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the
Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also
known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates
included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not
approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as
musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a
different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates
of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple
criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that
"biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and
State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form
of Union raids…". Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at
Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black
Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."

That ok now? Or need the much more I can find?

"The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black
militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull
Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black
"regiments", one free and one slave, participated in the battle on
behalf of the South. "Many colored people were killed in the action",
recorded John Parker, a former slave."

Need some more?

"At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer.
James Washington, Co. D 34th Texas Cavalry, "Terrell's Texas Cavalry"
became it's 3rd Sergeant. In comparison, The highest ranking Black
Union soldier during the war was a Sergeant Major."

Some more?

"Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary
Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of
Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in
this number . These were clad in all kinds of
uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms,
but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were
shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in
the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets,
sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral
portion of the Southern Confederate Army.""

More? How about Fredrick Douglas...or does he not count today?

"Frederick Douglas reported, "There are at the present moment many
Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks,
servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their
shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any
loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal
government and build up that of the…rebels."


STFU or put up your proof none of this is true, if you can't don't reply because you are reaching for bombs to throw, nothing else. And BTW fuck you and the horse you rode in on using the scumfuckers that tried the Obama is Muslim shit as defelction for not having anything to say, I've supported Obama before Iowa, and don't you dare try to place me with those assholes.

[galledgoblin]

108. there were also a handful of former slaves who went on to own slaves

these facts change nothing, the Southern system that the Confederacy went to war to protect was entrenched in slavery.

fuck the excuses, you dig through every one and you will find that at the core the war was about Southern slavery.

my heritage has some parts that I'm conflicted about as well. while I may find some pride in their actions and their defiance, I also know that the violent acts they took were wrong.

I don't wave around the flag of the IRA, and Southerners shouldn't wave around the Confederate Battle Flag.

[GoldieAZ49]

109. And they choose to stay in the south after the war

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. There's nothing wrong in taking an interest in it from a historical side...

....because if you look at things historically, the Civil War was fascinating, and if you like military history, a lot of the southern generals were pretty amazing in terms of tactics and strategy. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, AP Hill, Stuart--there is some credit to be said that they clearly were at a disadvantage in terms of manpower and firepower, but were able to make up for it with pure wits. Any lesser army would have probably surrendered within 5 months of Fort Sumter. And Robert E. Lee is probably one of the most complex, conflicted and intriguing persons in American History, and probably the greatest military general who ever conducted battle on American soil.

Is having an interest in the historical aspects of the Civil War, and in particular the southern military strategies and maneuvers, an endorsement of slavery, racism and bigotry that sadly was the major driving force in that war? I don't think it is. But that requires that one thinks objectively on the matter.

[crankychatter]

10. career military officers are interested in military history - it's not a mystery

and it doesn't mean he's a racist, supports racist causes or is even moderately illiberal

I don't support him for VP, but we could do a helluva lot worse

ya'all really have a tendency to stereotype southerners

I've noticed that with education, southerners can overcome racism acquired in their youth

I've also noticed, that with defacto segregation in the north... no cultural affinity for AA people... that Yankee racists are often intractable and vicious

I see the vehement anti-southern sentiments up in here as a manifestation of the same bigotry

it's cost us more than ONE election

[Zomby Woof]

126. Webb was behind the Vietnam Memorial Statue

Specifically, its inclusion of an African American soldier. He conceived of, and led the fight for this idea.

I just add this because I find the notion that Webb's vilification over his defense of the valor of the Confederate soldier is some kind of sign that he is latently racist or other similarly weak-minded bullshit. Then again, critical, contextually accurate thinking has always been in short supply. Polarized, dogmatic, ideologues usually dominate the discussions here.

[MrScorpio]

11. Webb's position may be that of a historian. Which I can't find objectionable

But he replaced George Allen (Which I had the distinct displeasure to meet once) who, without a doubt, can be described as a "Confederate Chickenhawk". Google it.



So unless anyone can confirm that Webb keeps Confederate battle flags all over his residences, or wears stars and bars boxer shorts, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's a southern man who's interested in his heritage, but has progressive tendencies.

No problem there.

[uponit7771]

17. RIGHT!! There's a difference in praising the slave ideals the confederacy was fighting for

...vs. praising the solidiers and the heritage.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Why praise that particular aspect of "heritage" though?

Just because something is part of your heritage, doesn't mean you have to be proud of it. I understand that most of the confederates who fought didn't own slaves themselves. But Germans don't celebrate their relatives being part of Nazi Germany, even if they were forced to join those ranks. They don't fly Nazi flags and claim it doesn't mean anything other than heritage. Fighting for slavery (and that is what it is about according to the articles of secession) and fighting for the superiority of the white race are atrocities and while people should be aware of it, they should not be celebrating any part of it.

[MrScorpio]

22. Are we talking about specific instances of "Praise" or just "Study" by Webb here?

I need details

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. I don't know about that. I'm only responding to the poster, not Webb.

[leftofcool]

57. I don't see Webb as praising as much as studying

And I don't see him as some dyed in the wool "the South is gonna rise again" Confed. As a military man and a historian, I think it is just an area of interest for him.

[MrScorpio]

67. Well, Like I said before: I can't see how this is objectionable

It's all a lot of make do about nothing

[AspenRose]

28. You met "Macaca" Allen?

What was that like?

[MrScorpio]

30. A bit creepy

I met him on my job.

He was campaigning in Southern VA. I didn't tell him that I'd hope he'd lose, but I was oh so close.

[leftofcool]

52. McCaCa is a nasty piece of work

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

102. Truly.

[crankychatter]

14. in 04 when Edwards could've won, I couldn't find ANY other Edwards supporters in WA State

I would've been throwing away my vote at Convention to support him

that was anti-southern sentiment even more than his IWR vote

in 08, when it's TOO LATE, all those Kerry folks were pumpin Edwards up there (so I'm told... I ain't there anymore)

seems like we always "GET IT" four years too late

[Clark2008]

26. Dear... very few Southerners liked Edwards

He's not a Southern man's Southern man.

He could not have been re-elected in NC. He didn't help Kerry's ticket and he bombed in SC this past election.

He's only popular on this board.

[crankychatter]

29. he polled well against bush in 04 and again in 08

better than kerry in 04 and better than most in 08 (too late)

since JFK we haven't had a DC insider Dem in the WH... just southerners, just governors

we democrats are addicted to failure - i swear to god

[karynnj]

34. He did not poll better than Kerry in 2004

There were several polls taken, mostly in early February 2004 and Kerry polled far better than Edwards. Edwards was also never the front runner, so he never got the testing front runners get.

In fact, Edwards would have been far easier to beat. His debates would not have been like Kerry's - especially the first one. Kerry is incredibly good on foreign policy and he had credibility on military issues. Edwards had neither. This would have made it tough to get people in the middle to change Presidents in the middle of a war. He also would have been attacked for things like channeling a baby's thoughts through a difficult birth to win a malpractice suit. It played to the jury, but I think it would bother many people.

Strange as it may sound now, Edwards might have lost considerably more to Nader and the Green party. He was then running as both more hawkish and as a conservative Democrat. On the war, many who were angry at Kerry's vote knew that he spoke against invading before the war and after the invasion. They also knew his history. Nader himself spoke of having a good meeting with Kerry and he never made a sensible case for running against him. (Saying he was running because he could and would hit Bush harder is a strange way to run - especially as he praised Kerry as Presidential and spoke of admiring him from 1971.) Edwards had NONE of this and was actually pro-war through moist of 2003 (meaning there was a lot of video of him defending the invasion). Then throw in his vote for the bankruptcy bill and the fact that he really had very few accomplishments.

[crankychatter]

42. different polls at different moments but you completely evade my point

No non southern dem and perceived DC insider has had the White House since JFK

you think that means nothing?

[karynnj]

61. As a statistician, I would caution that TWO data points are insufficient

to prove anything. Jimmy carter and Bill Clinton had the good fortune to run at the two best years for Democrats. 1976 was after Watergate and the Vietnam War. Ford was the President because he was confirmed as Nixon's VP. Between the fact that he was utterly unimpressive and had pardoned Nixon, he made a huge gaffe saying that Poland was NOT behind the Iron Curtain. Clinton ran against a President who in early 1992 dropped below 40% and went into a free fall ending at 33% and Perot had convinced many that he was unstable when he dropped out then returned. Any Democrat would have won.

So let's see, how many non-Presidents or VPs ran:

JFK
Humphrey
McGovern
Carter
Dukakis
Clinton
Kerry

Of these, JFK, Carter, and Clinton won. But, had there been either sufficient voting machines in Ohio or a media as fair as in any earlier years - Kerry would have won as well. We would then have 2 Senator JFK from MA (with thick hair) wins and 2 Southern Governors - and the 2 that won the tougher races would have been the 2 JFKs from MA.

Now, using your belief that two southern Democratic winners was significant, then MA has a huge responsibility - they need to make sure they elect more Senators with the correct initials! There would be as much justification in my argument - which I personally think is asinine.

The other thing is that Edwards doesn't meet the pattern - he was not a governor. He also was beaten solidly by Kerry in the primaries in almost every Southern state. (Edwards was higher just in SC and OK - and got a favorite son vote in NC after Kerry was already the presumptive nominee.) Kerry got around three times more votes.

[Clark2008]

24. Old Southern thinking?

:wtf:

I'm sorry - but no one down here has thought of women as Southern Belles, literally, since the early 1900s.

Geesch. I hope some of you actually come down here some time and learn that we're not bumpkins with no shoes drinking moonshine over our bad teeth. :eyes:

[ieoeja]

35. Well you and I certainly had a different experience.

Your post is oxymoronic anyway. "Bumpkins with no shoes drinking moonshine over bad teeth" are not the ones thinking of women as Southern Belles.

But among the upper crust and wannabes I found that way of thinking commonplace when I lived in Alabama. I knew women who would head over to their boyfriend's house "to get raped" a couple nights a week. They referred to themselves as "southern belles" and no "lady" would ever engage in extra-marital sexual activities. So they called it rape no matter how much they were the aggressor.

So, yes, there are plenty of idjits who still believe in that shit. Or at least there was in the 1980s. Which is a far cry removed from the 1880s.

[Hieronymus]

65. Women? How many women told you they went to get raped?

[ieoeja]

71. More than one. Less than a dozen.

What I would deem "sane" women were most upset by this behavior. Date-raped women have a hard enough time getting people to believe them. Having these self-annointed "southern belles" saying things like that made a date-rape charge impossible.

I even knew one married woman who had three children, all in wedlock, all by her husband, and all by rape according to her. Because no decent woman would ever willingly engage in sexual activies even when married.

[bunnies]

32. No to Webb.

We dont need to whip up any more racist feelings. I find him offensive.

More info on him: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10994.html

[S_E_Fudd]

37. Lee was a great General...Grant was greater...

I know a bit off topic...but

This is one of my pet peeves...the South redefined our perception of some of the personalities involved in the Civil War during reconstruction.

In fact, IMO anyway, Grant was the greatest General in American history...

During the Civil War 4 confederate armies surrendered...at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Appamattox, and the Carolinas

Three of them surrendered to Grant...

His alcohol issues were given false prominence by historians of the "lost cause" school in an attemnpt to denigrate Grant and lower him in history's eyes below those heroes of the confederacy.

In fact, objectively speaking, Ulysses S. Grant was the most successful General in American history...

And he wasn't that bad of a President either...

[whistler162]

53. and George H. Thomas was better than both....

but didn't get the press or command because he was a Virginian.

[S_E_Fudd]

66. Nahhh...

A highly competent General, certainly top tier, with nerves of steel (Rock of Chickamuga)...a bit too methodical however....

He never could have pulled off a Vicksburg for example....

[BryMan]

112. Your opinion is one thing....

But, if you take into consideration the fact that Fort Donelson was located in a very bad position making it rather easy to surround from high ground Grant, or anyone with half decent leadership ability should have been able with the manpower/naval advantage he had would easily have been able to do the same.

Vicksburg was even worse for the fact that Pendelton made blunder after blunder to make that easier for Grant. Grant also made several blunders crossing South of Vickburg with Sherman's force that infact got a bloody nose before the overwhelming size difference took over there. Grant once again had huge manpower/naval advanatge here as well making it a done deal regardless of whom was the commander.

Appamattox was no feat when you outnumber the enemy 6-7 to 1, and also have a MUCH better supplied force, so that wasn't great generalship. It was asking for and accepting a surrender, by a decent person to another which both knew eachother well, thank goodness for Lee and Grant being those two.

Grant simply knew he had supply, and manpower advantages so he kept his men on the field rather than running off like the previous commanders, that isn't anything but simple logic. If you want to see his abilities as a field tactician Belmont where he had manpower advantage and got badly outmanouvered, and Shiloh where he didn't take heed to reports of enemy nearby, or The Wilderness where his army got ambushed are much better examples that he wasn't the genius you are awarding him. He was persistant, thats what made him the right general for the situation though, and he gets credit for seeing the obvious that apaprently the rest before him were too stupid to see.

The "lost cause school" as you put it doesn't have many students anymore, or they aren't very schooled about the subject, and I don't care for them myself.

The best american generals tactically, leadershipwise, and by agressiveness are for some hard to swallow. A real list doesn't include Grant, but would have to inculde him for agressiveness if it were that alone for sure he'd be top 3. Arnold, Forrest, Pershing, Patton, and Eisenhower would rank higher. I know they aren't all "good guys" to many, but they were better than Grant.

Grant was a good president as well, that unfortunately had awful people around him, and also wrote the best memior any president probably ever will write.

[S_E_Fudd]

119. You articulate the notion many have

That Grant simply won on the basis of superior manpower...

Your argument about Donelson could be made about the position of any losing army...Lee at Gettysburg, Burnside at Fredericksburg, Hooker at Chancellorville, Hood at Nashville

In fact Vicksburg is considered by many (Ed Bearss among them) as the single greatest military campaign in American History...fighting and winning 7 battles(number may be off), cut off from his supply line, trapping the Confederates in Vicksburg, and opening up the Mississippi cutting off the confederacy...

Paper numbers in evaluating relative advantage is not the most salient factor...it is who brings the most to bear in a given place, who is on offense, who on defense, strategic considerations. Lee was almost always on the defense, a simpler tactical proposition. And the two most conspicuous examples of him taking the offensive...he nearly wiped his army out in both instances...Gettysburg and Antietam

You belittle Appomattox...yet the reason Lee was in the position he was at the end was precisely because of the strategy Grant employed when he came east. Lee was on the defensive from day one, being push further south, losing manpower and supplies as he fell back...exactly what Grants plan called for.

There isn't a general on either side, or on the list of those you mentioned that hasn't committed battlefield blunders. You mention Shiloh, and Grant was taken unawares, but the fact is he turned it around and achieved a victory there...

Again at the Wilderness, I think ambush is the wrong word, they were well aware the Confederates were in the area, Grant tried to push through before Lee could come up and trap him there. It didn't work, yet Wilderness is considered a draw by most, and Lee did have to fall back on the defensive.

I didn't claim Grant was the greatest tactical General in American history...though the Vicksburg campaign and Chattanooga show he had game there as well...but no one had a better strategic sense of what would win the war than Grant did, and no one had as much success implementing a strategy...average generals get lucky once in a while...Great Genarals get lucky all the time...

[Hugabear]

38. Lee and his co-horts were fucking traitors - please do not praise them here

Not only did Gen. Lee turn his back on the United States, he then proceeded to kill TENS OF THOUSANDS of American soldiers.

It wasn't enough to simply turn down command of the Union Army. He had to turn around and lead the Confederate army through years of an illegal war. Why? Just so the south could keep their fucking slaves.

Pathetic.

[jody]

60. Do you know that several states in the Northeast considered secession before the south?

See Secession in the United States for a brief overview.

[Hugabear]

62. "Considered" is the key word there

I'm well aware that there have been various secessionist movements throughout our history. Hell, there are still factions around the country who would like to secede.

[jody]

63. By your logic, those northern leaders who sought secession were traitors. n/t

[Hugabear]

69. Once again, they didn't follow through with that, did they?

But you're talking about two totally different situations here. In your example, the country was still in its infancy, and was by no means the same country that it was in 1861. The fact that they stuck together despite the circumstances that they faced in the early 1800s speaks volumes.

The South seceded primarily to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery. Don't give me any bullshit about "states rights" - that was the official reason they gave, true. But anyone with half a brain knows that the overriding concern for the Confederacy was protecting slavery.

[jody]

70. And Lincoln didn't care about slavery either as he often said, he just wanted to preserve the union.

Have a good day and please read more about the war between the states.

If you are reasonably intelligent, you will discover just how misinformed you are.

[ieoeja]

73. Misinformed in what way?

Every confederate declaration of secession I have read says right near the beginning they are seceding to protect slavery.

They certainly did not secede to protect their right to secede! That sounds rather like a Monty Python sketch.

"Look. None of us WANT to secede. We just want to make sure we have the RIGHT to secede."

"So how will we do that exactly?"

"By seceding!"

"But ... we don't actually want to secede."

"Yes. Well. But don't you see that we have to secede to protect our right to secede."

"And that would be our right as...?"

"As American citizens!"

"As citizens of a country of which we would no longer be citizens."

"Right."

"You're balmy."

[Hugabear]

74. Please show me where I said Lincoln "cared about slavery"

I didn't. I merely made the point that those who seceded from the Union were traitors.

Furthermore, your statement that "Lincoln didn't care about slavery" is patently absurd. Show me if you can find where Lincoln "didn't care" about slavery. Fact is, Lincoln was quite outspoken in his feelings about slavery, how he felt it was wrong. The problem was that the Constitution enshrined slavery, so there wasn't really much he could do about it by himself while President. The Emancipation Proclamation could not affect anyone in the Union slave states, it only applied to areas of the Confederacy that were under Union occupation. It took a Constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery, as you should know.

[jody]

75. You can start by browsing "Abraham Lincoln on slavery" in Wikipedia with links to credible sources

to find views on your question, "Show me if you can find where Lincoln "didn't care" about slavery".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

[Hugabear]

77. Your own link proves you wrong

Nothing in your link shows that Lincoln didn't care about slavery. In fact, quite the opposite!

<snip>
Douglas and Lincoln aired their disagreement in three public speeches during September and October of 1854. <2> The most comprehensive address, the"Peoria Speech", was given by Lincoln in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16. <3> He and Douglas both spoke to the large audience, Douglas first and Lincoln in response two hours later. The three hour speech <4>, transcribed after the fact by Lincoln himself, presented thorough moral, legal and economic arguments against slavery, and set the stage for Lincoln’s political future<5>.
<snip>


The link you provided illustrates how Lincoln argued that under the Constitution, slavery could not simply be outlawed, yet he did argue in favor of its eventual extinction.

Now, your turn - show me where in that link, or anywhere else for that matter - that Lincoln "didn't care" about slavery.

[jody]

81. “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.”

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

[comrade snarky]

87. Shall we go quote for quote and see who runs out first?

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally"

A. Lincoln

[comrade snarky]

90. Or I could just do this

If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.
--July 6, 1852 Eulogy on Henry Clay

Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak.
--October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria

The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves.
--August 15, 1855 Letter to George Robertson

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.
--August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes.
--August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
--June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech

I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil...
--October 7, 1858 Debate at Galesburg, Illinois

He is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and national.
--October 7, 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg, Illinois

When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.
--October 13, 1858 Debate at Quincy, Illinois

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.
--April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

Now what is Judge Douglas' Popular Sovereignty? It is, as a principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object.
--September 16, 1859 Speech in Columbus, Ohio

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave in not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it.
--February 27, 1860 Speech at the Cooper Institute

We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself.
--September 17, 1859 Speech in Cincinnati, Ohio

Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again.
--December 10, 1860 Letter to Lyman Trumbull

You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.
--December 22, 1860 Letter to Alexander Stephens

I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation.
--February 1, 1861 Letter to William H. Seward

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.
--April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.
--March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address

[jody]

94. LOL, I replied to #77 "show me . . . that Lincoln 'didn't care' about slavery." Have a nice evening.

[comrade snarky]

95. And I replied to you

Showing that he did care deeply about abolition and your assertion he did not is wrong.

Care to rehash the conversation again?

[jody]

96. You do make me laugh. Have you done your homework for the evening? Goodbye n/t

[comrade snarky]

104. Homework?

That the best ya got? Glad I can make you laugh. Sad it's the truth that does it though.

Ah well, if ignorance is bliss you should be the happiest man in the south. Enjoy your whatever.

[Hugabear]

99. Sorry, you did no such thing

That quote you supplied merely shows Lincoln's resolve to preserve the Union. It does NOT indicate that he did not care about slavery.

For crying out loud, you've been given numerous quotes and examples showing exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to argue. You're going to hang your hat on one single quote that you're pulling out of context?

[Hugabear]

98. Sorry - that does NOT prove that Lincoln simply didn't care

The only thing that quote shows is that Lincoln's first and foremost priority was PRESERVING THE UNION - which is exactly what he was sworn to do!

[jody]

84. “I [am]. . . against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery.”

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Seventh Joint Debate
http://www.usconstitution.com/lincoln-douglasdebates7.htm

Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and white people.

[comrade snarky]

88. Or how about this one

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

--ca. August 1, 1858 Fragment on Democracy

[Hugabear]

100. Again...fail

I've already conceded the fact that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery on his own - he recognized that slavery was inherent in the Constitution.

What about the myriad of other quotes available where Lincoln voices his strong opposition to slavery? You simply cannot provide a single example of Lincoln "not caring" about slavery. Sorry, that was YOUR original argument, and you cannot back that up.

[comrade snarky]

79. Didn't Care?

Really? Umm no. I have to call bullshit on that little jem.

Yes preserving the Union and preventing the horrible bloodbath of war was more important to him than an immediate end to slavery but to say he didn't care is so uninformed, biased and willfully ignorant of history that it puts you right into the middle of the worst southron revisionists. Jeebus that is a stupid thing to say.

In your world Lincoln was an asshole who didnt care about slavery, Lee was the most honorable man ever to break an oath to his country and confederate ranks included happy black folks fighting to remain property. Yeah, right.

Take off your own blinders and try reading something not on the internet.

[Hugabear]

80. Makes about as much sense as a Jewish SS officer

The only blacks who did fight for the Confederacy were those who were promised their freedom late in the war, in a desperate attempt by the South to come up with more cannon fodder. There certainly weren't many black Confederates to begin with, and NONE of them were fighting for the Confederacy - they were fighting to earn their own freedom.

[comrade snarky]

86. Exactly

The confederacy wasn't going to allow armed battalions of blacks. They were evil, not stupid.

My understanding is the majority of southern blacks who were with the confederate army were conscripts. Slaves or sometimes free men forced into support roles and not allowed to bear arms or wear the uniform. The weird few who wanted to fight weren't allowed to do so until the very end of the war when the government had nothing to lose.

Was there a handful who fought, yes. A significant number, hell no. Yet the revisionists grab on to their existence and try to use them to claim the civil war wasn't fought over slavery and it's expansion to other territories. This is a mythology built around the confederacy that I expect to see on freerepublic. Not here.

Unfortunately this primary has shown me that not all the dixiecrats left the party after LBJ signed the civil rights act. That's one group I don't need in the big democratic tent. They can be separate but equal in their own tent down the road.

[Honeycombe8]

103. You show a big misunderstanding of the facts and Gen. Lee. Ever watch Ken Burns "The Civil War"?

I highly recommend it. It's excellent. It gives the viewer an up close and personal view of the war, from both sides.

The war was about slavery, yessirree. But mainly it was about secession, and whether part of the country could secede, no matter what the reason. This is a not uncommon reason for countries to go to war against itself. Great Britain has done it several times (can you say Granada?)

BTW, the war was legal. Abe Lincoln is the one who waged the war, and he said it was legal, so.....

Gen. Lee was a fine general and seemingly good man. He happened to fight on the side you disagree with. He wasn't fighting for slavery. He was fighting for his part of the country, out of a sense of duty.

Check out "The Civil War" by Ken Burns. PBS. It's a multiple disc set. It's THE definitive video of the war.

[comrade snarky]

107. Why did they want the right of secession?

The United States government was not going to allow the expansion of slavery to new states and territories. The South knew that without expansion their economy was doomed.

Therefore they decided to go to war to protect the institution of human chattel slavery. Let me repeat that, they went to war to protect their money and property. Other humans.

Read the articles of secession.

The shooting war began at Ft Sumter when the southern artillery fired on the fort to prevent it's resupply by the United Stated government. The South fired first. That's verifiable history.
Fort Sumter National Park Website

Lee may have been a good man but he supported and devoted himself to an abhorrent cause. I'm going to take that into consideration before lauding the man.

<edited for tpyo>

[loyalsister]

51. The problem with allegations and misunderstandings

Not long ago a family member suddenly began flying the Confederate flag.
The rational given was that there were confederate soldiers in the family tree.
We argued over interpretation. He disputed the validity of an interpretation symbolically associated with racism.
"If they think that it's their own problem. That's not what it means." I was told.

The piece that could not be ignored however was that this person had a SO who was so racist it made you question whether a membership card to the KKK existed somewhere.

Since that relationship had "blossomed" the family member seemed to have been given license to express some previously stifled opinions.

Someone he respected came along and allowed him to unleash what he had never become comfortable with finally believing was wrong.

So, he was willing to take this flag and fly it with disregard for the potential interpretation of racism because his own interpretation was "the truth."


Why is it not reasonable to acknowledge the potential these writings have to give backing to endorse similar and even worse "truths"?

[DFW]

72. A Confederate from Missouri?

Jim Webb was born in Missouri, was a military brat for a while, graduated high school
in Nebraska, attended USC and Annapolis. He didn't live in VA until he was in his twenties.
He still talks like a midwesterner, unlike his predecessor, George Macaca, who was from
southern California, but affected a southern accent. I very much doubt that Webb harbors any
Confederate nostalgia.

[Hieronymus]

76. Thanks -

[whistler162]

83. Harry S. Truman's forefathers where!

Look it up in a bio of him.

For my own self preservation I am blocking this threadso I don't SCREAM at some people.

[Honeycombe8]

101. I think Missouri was on the Confederate side of the war, wasn't it? nt

[DFW]

110. Missouri, as a "border state" was torn between the two sides

It sent tens of thousand of soldiers to both sides, and, according
to historical sites, actually had more battles on its territory than
any other state except Virginia and Tennessee:
http://www.mocivilwar.org/home.html

[loyalsister]

117. Both

During the war, Missouri was claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy, had two competing state governments, and sent representatives to the governments of both sides. This unusual situation, which also existed to some degree in the border state of Kentucky, was the result of events in early 1861......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_secession

[Hugabear]

130. It's also how we got West Virginia

West Virginia seceded from Virginia in order to remain part of the Union.

[lynne]

118. His grandfather from KY married a Missouri woman which is how the Webb's got to Missouri -

- but the rest of the WEBB family are from KY, South West VA and TN back to as far as the early 1800's. WEBB is a huge name in south west VA and south east KY. Loretta Lynn was a WEBB from that region and it's the Scot Irish who settled the VA/KY Appalachian chain.

Webb's southern roots are so deep you couldn't find them with a pick ax and three back loaders.

http://www.wargs.com/political/webb.html

[hokies4ever]

82. Thank you for a positive unity thread leftofcool

I was a little worried that this might be a hitjob on Obama when I clicked on it, but it's not. :patriot:

[Sparkly]

97. He's just perfect where he is, in Virginia.

And I think he should stay there.

[genna]

127. The case against Webb: New Republic Style

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=831e71f6-708f-4833-a1cb-1f8352c8c7bf

All of this information about Webb is out there and relatively well known. Which makes the Democratic infatuation with him all the more perplexing. Why are so many liberals willing to overlook so much evidence suggesting that Jim Webb sees the world so differently than we do? Part of the explanation is obviously that liberals want to win so badly that they are willing to overlook flaws in any running mate who might help Obama garner votes. But there has to be more to it than that, since the flaws that liberals are overlooking in Webb's case are not an isolated heresy here or there, or even (as with Sam Nunn) a marked tendency towards centrism, but rather a considerable body of evidence suggesting that his general outlook is deeply estranged from our own. Besides, it's not like liberals are merely saying they would tolerate Webb in order to win back the White House; a lot of them (like Katrina vanden Heuvel) seem genuinely taken with the guy. What gives?

The answer, I think, lies in the difference between politics and philosophy. Liberals are looking only at Webb's positions, not his worldview. In the years since he left the Republican Party, Webb has found his way to certain policy stands that liberals correctly find attractive. He was right about Iraq, and, on economics, he is right to criticize the disparity between rich and poor. But taking positions that happen to intersect with the views of liberals is not the same thing as actually being a liberal. In a president or vice president, I don't just want someone who agrees with me on a handful of issues. I want someone whose instincts about the world I trust--whose underlying philosophy is decent, humane, and, yes, liberal. For any Democrat who believes that Jim Webb meets these criteria, I have a simple question: Are you completely out of your mind?

[nels25]

128. I would not be so sure.

I have read several articles alluding to Webb and his stance regarding the Old confederacy and it's connection to Scot's/Irish heritage and it clicks with other things I have received instruction on.

In my college days I had a Professor (Richard Reeves if memory serves me) and he went into great detail about the Scots and Irish influence in the states that would become the confederacy, it matches in tone and almost word exactly what I have read about Webb.

In any case it could be used against us on a national level, so I am inclined to counsel caution in this situation.