BS: Party of Lincoln

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Slag
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM

Hey, I could be wrong. I think I remember being wrong, once! I was thinking of Colonel Allensworth (actually he never rose above the rank of "private" in the Union Army) but I rechecked the story and the community he established was more or less on his own dime. But I do know that Union soldiers, including some black Union soldiers, were paid with land, much of it in the west. And, unfortunately, much of it was Indian land. As I mentioned above, I am only drawing on memory and you all probably know how that goes, and goes, and goes!

I remeber a description of a Confederate charge against a Union line. The writer described the soldiers as looking like scarecrows and ghosts. Half of them didn't hold a weapon. Some had little in the way of clothing. They were gaunt and hollow-eyed and they all knew they were about to die. It broke the writer's heart to do what he did, to keep pulling the trigger and reloading and at the same time he hated them for not surrendering when every evidence shouted "Surrender!". It literally broke the South when Lee did surrender.

You can say what you want about the imperfectness of all concerned but you can't naysay the bravery and dedication of those who fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:54 PM

I know I'll probably get a bit of flack for this but shouldn't the congratulating the Black elected officials and the arguing for the the side of the South be kept separate. I get a bad taste in my mouth when I think about the direction of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:21 AM

Kendall said Another major mistake on the part of the South, when the war broke out the South had ONE iron foundry,Tredegar Iron works and that was in Richmond, just a few miles from the Union line.
Fact was the Army of Northern Virginia captured so much munition in the first two years of the war it didn't need a huge arms works to continue the fight.
What it needed was soldiers and food for them. Time and again Lee defeated his opponent with half the men the Union mustered. But the attrition was horrific, and even losing battle after battle, the North could afford the losses of men and material. Once Lincoln put Grant in charge, and Grant simply refused to disengage, Lee was forced to withdraw toward his capitol and finally fight a defensive struggle around it.
The only hope the South had was the unpopularity of the war in Northern eyes, and when McClellan lost the election to Lincoln in 1864, the struggle was effectively over.
Lincoln was a great man and a fine president, as was Theodore Roosevelt. Lincoln stood for the equality of the races and the ideals of the Republic, and Roosevelt for right of the country to govern Big Business rather than vice-versa.
We need such men now.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:34 AM

Tredegar Iron Works was right there on the James River where the rapids are and as the North quickly found out after the "6 day battles" that Richmond was not going to be easy to take because of the swamps to the north and to the east... BTW, alot of the artillery that was forged there was done using Union prisoners who were housed on Bell Island which was/is located in the middle of the river right there where Tredegar is...

I would agree that we need more people with spine right now, Capt'n, but we'll have to agree to disagree on Lincoln as this great man... No one, in my book, that had the power to perhaps change the events that led to the unCivil war and didn't gets the "great" designation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:33 AM

... but you can't naysay the bravery and dedication of those who fought.

Never did, Slag, nor would I attempt to do so.

No one, in my book [i.e. Lincoln], that had the power to perhaps change the events that led to the unCivil war..

A it too simplistic, Bobert. You're implying that Lincoln had some sort of magical/ mystical powers.

He had no more chance of stopping the run-away freight train that had been leading up to Civil War for decades than Obama has of turning around in 18 months the fallout from 30 years or Republican mismanagement.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:01 AM

Here's the real deal here, Greg...

Lincoln didn't have to use such firey rhetoric in the campaign... He was going to be elected no matter because the Northern Repubs had the numbers... Lincoln could have shown a little more grace in his speeches...

But that's just the tip of the iceberg... The unCivil War didn't begin until well after Lincoln had been sworn in and he allowed himself to get sucked into a game of brinksmanship in Charleston... That was his choice... I guess he just didn't understand just how pissed off the secessionists were... His bad... Again, I am not excusing anything that the secessionists did but pointing out that that clusterfuck pchapter of American history took more than one person putting pride above intellect... Kinda like the Iraq war, come to think of it...

I mean, I think it can be argued that there were opportunities on both side to "step back" after 1st Mananas and again neither side was operating with intellect...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:28 AM

That may be A deal, Bobert, but it sure ain't real.

Lincoln didn't use "firey" rhetoric in the campaign. You want "firery", read the Richmond Examiner, the Charleston Mercury, etc. & the speeches of Calhoun, Stephens, et. al.

The South's vote in the election of 1860 & the reaction to Lincoln's election were based on wilfull misrepresentations of his positions, lies and a river of shit campaign very similar to the one recently waged against Obama.

The Southern population was accordingly just about as rational in 1860/61 as the Birthers, TeaBaggers, and the "Get Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" bunch.

Once the United States had been attacked by military force, there weren't a lot of options upen to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: ollaimh
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:30 AM

the revisionist history that lee was a "gentlerman" is easily refuted. this is not hiden or arcane knowledge. even the pbs documentary on the civil war noted that grant ceased prospner exchange when the south was returning no black soldiers. it really deosn't matter it happened at the end of the war--its a racist genocidal war cri,e.

lee himself refused to have a cadet core at the college he headed for decades after the war as he felt great guilt for the unecessary suffering he caoused and even admited the killing of blak soldiers was wrong.

the lionization of lee is part of the whoole lets pretend history americans --especially southerners-- are devoted to. its seems people down there would rather have fake heros than know the truth. it really shows how little people cared because the prisoners of war were black. then look at the terrible conditions of jim crow. children as young as eight imprisined for life in farms and worked to death. the prison farms usually housed over two hundred thousand black americans who mostly never got release. there was a deqth rate of over fifty per cent, and in some years fifty percent each year.

thios is dammning. devotion to a flag of racist cruelty and men who perpetrated such crimes shows how deeply engrained fascism is in america. i don't expect it to change but looking the truth in the face is the first step.

this irrational view of your own history is the first step in creating a populace that will accept massive violation of civil and human rights. funny the bush adminstration is getting off scott free for war crimes and crimes against the american democracy, and the protest movement isn't about that. its a yea party selling the corporate line one more time.

the inability to recognize your own history leads directly to the inability to recognize the lies of anti democratic politicians who are destroying the americann democt=racy and ecomomy right now

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: ollaimh
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

as for lincoln he was no abolitionist nor democratic fire brand. but the enemy was so vile he was forced to fight. at every turn the southern leadership broke every code of human decency right untill they were destroyed. unfortunately the bush years were a sort of revenge of the confederacy.

once forced to fight such evil forces lincoln did see it through to the end. many northerners were prepared to come to some agreement. the north didn't put more than ten to twenty per cent of its resources into the war untill the very end. thats what kept the south alive so long. many northerners didn't want to pay a dime for the war so lincoln had to conduct war with inadequate resources.

i notice as well that american historians ignore wilkes-booths involvement with the british army intelligence. he spent most of the war years in toronto canada supported by the british army. the british were horrofied that after victory lincoln might take his 600,000 veteren soldiers and invade canada. many british historians speculate that the british funded the assination of lincoln, but americans seem to ignor this possibility because they entered a period of agreement with the british empire to keep other europeans powers out of the new world while the british investors had free reign protected by american gun boats all over the americas.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:43 AM

By the way, Bobert - just curious - have you read any recent Lincoln scholarship?- Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, Eric Foner's (ed) Our Lincoln or David Herbert Donald's Lincoln for instance?

Might be worth your while.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM

I am an immigrant from Canada so I don't really know all the feelings involved. But I can say one thing for sure. The war is over. Its time to stop fighting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM

Not re-fighting the war, Jack. Just trying to counter myth, bullshit & fairytale as they crop up from time to time.

If folks can't understand accept the facts of situations, they're never going to reach a resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

The prisoner exchange program during the Civil War was not terminated because the South refused to trade black prisoners. It was terminated because the strategy under Grant was to dent ANY resupply to the Confederacy, because attrition naturally favors the army with the greatest supply of men and material. For this, Grant was willing to let his men die in wretched circumstances in places like Andersonville, where treatment grew even worse after the exchanges ended. To characterize this this as the result of Southern obstinacy and hatred for black prisoners does not describe the situation and smacks of as much revisionism as does the concept that the war was fought over state's rights and had nothing to do with slavery.

Lee was no angel, but he was certainly a better general than anyone the Union could muster to oppose him. He was also a man who opposed secession, but could not bear to see his state leave the Union and be invaded without taking up arms to defend it. He was a great battlefield leader, but was consumed by the need to break the Army of the Potomac and force a ceasefire. Always lacking the forces to capitalize on victories, such as those at Manassas, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville, Lee simply lacked the power to defeat AND pursue and crush a beaten army. His ill-chosen frontal attack at Gettysburg was the product of this frustration and need.

Slavery taints the action of all of those who fought for the South, but it does not make them evil or excessively cruel. And we shouldn't need that sort of justification to say that the South was essentially and basically wrong in its actions, and that, thanks largely to the obstinacy and vision of Lincoln, it was rightly defeated.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:44 PM

>>If folks can't understand accept the facts of situations, they're never going to reach a resolution. <<

You think that you will change their minds by arguing with them.

I think that you are actually arguing with their great granddaddies and the stars and bars on the back of their trucks?

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:58 PM

Oh, Greg, so Lincoln was this saint and Davis was the devil... Okay, I see where you are coming from... A totally biased viewpoint where one side is the bad side and the other the good side... Lincoln did indeed say all the things the the Northern Repubs wanted to hear... And in the Charleston harbor he did all the things that were overtly antagonistic and not helpful if there was going to be a way to not end up at war...

I don't think those points are all that debatable... Of course, American history being what it is, to the victors go the spoils of sanitazation and revision...

I think when we discuss the unCivil War in terms of bad guys and good guys we aren't lookin' at much more than the revised edition...

I mean, heck yeah the Southern states that were hanging onto slavery were wrong... So were folks in Washington, D.C. where there were over 4000 slaves at the beginning of the war...

But there was shortages of wrongness in the mid 1800's... Northerners didn't get the Southern culture and vice versa... I mean, different ways of livin' cross the Mason Dixon line not all that different between today's progressives and the Tea Party folks...

My own feelin's beyond my observations that we had two guilty parties is that if we could do a "reset" then alot more folks would have voted for John Bell in 1860 and avoided the entire mess...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM

The prisoner exchange program during the Civil War was not terminated because the South refused to trade black prisoners.

Where did this come from? No one maintained that it did.

The Confederacy did not TAKE Black prisoners as per the rules of war; they were summarily executed, or enslaved. The Confederacy did not recognize their military status.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:08 PM

Oh, Greg, so Lincoln was this saint and Davis was the devil.

Don't be an ass, Bobert, this is unworthy of you.( I hope )

A totally biased viewpoint where one side is the bad side and the other the good side

As above. I never so stated or even implied any such.

And you never answered my question about recent Lincoln scholarship versus the utter crap we were BOTH taught in school in the 1950's.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:10 PM

Pity about the Civil War, but there's nothing to do about it now. Pity about the previous Civil War back in 1776 too.

The thing to do is, learn from the times things go wrong. At least the British learned enough to avoid making the same mistake when it came to Canada and Australia...

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM

"the revisionist history that lee was a "gentlerman" is easily refuted. this is not hiden or arcane knowledge. even the pbs documentary on the civil war noted that grant ceased prospner exchange when the south was returning no black soldiers."
-Olaimh

That's what I was responding to, Greg. No argument about the execution of captured slaves, either. As I indicated, there is enough evidence of misdeed without implying that Grant was some shocked idealist who refused to trade prisoners due to racism. He was the ultimate pragmatist, in my opinion, and did what he thought he needed to do to bring the war to a swift conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:33 PM

Please please, let's have capital letters where capital letters should be. Stop mumbling!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:07 PM

I think that you are actually arguing with their great granddaddies...

If only that was the case! Unfortunately, a lot of this misinformation and myth is very much alive and well in the current generations- hence the white supremecist & Neo-Confederate movements, among others.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM

I dumped the revisionists story on college, Greg, when I had the distinct pleasure of taking both semesters of History of the South which was the only class that the late Dr. Rogers, the head of VCU's history department, taught... We spent a good month on 1860 and 1861 alone... Lots of interesting view points were brought up not only by Dr, Rogers but other students as well... BTW, 2 semesters of American History were a prerequisite... I have read a coupe books on Lincoln, one entitled "Lincoln" (author escapes me) but if I still own those books they are still packed away in book boxes that never got opened after the last move...

Actually, McG, there is something we can do about the unCivil War now and that is learn from it... There are a lot of similarities between what was goin' on in the 1850s up until the firing on Fort Sumpter and what's goin' on now with thr differences between the progressive movement and the Tea Partiers... Different ways of thinkin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:08 PM

BTW, I'm not familiar with the Lincoln scholarship, Greg... But then again, I don't want to go back to college... Had 'nuff... 8 years and two lousy degrees is plenty fir this ol' lexdexic hillbilly...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:32 PM

Hey, give those books I mentioned a try, Bobert. Ya ain't gotta "go back to college" - ain't no quizzes or tests, I promise, and you might actually enjoy 'em!!

Be well,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:34 AM

my take on several vexed question contained in the thread



http://www.bigalwhittle.co.uk/id44.html

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: ollaimh
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM

lee had the opportunity to free john brown at harpers ferry!! too bad he didn't

the idea that southern seccession was in any way democratic is central to the delusional thinking of the southern right. in south carolina forty per cent of the male population didn't have the vote. eighty per cent over all. these were democrats like the spartans were democrats. most of the south had at least a quarter of the population unable to vote. the south was a oligarchy not a democracy, and had no legitimacy to secceed untill it held referumdums on universal sufferage, and that was established international law even then, but the law now .

as got grants actions. i've read his letters about the prisoner exchange and those to the southern generals on the topic and he stated forth rightly that the failure to respect the lws of war resulted in no more prisoner exchange.

to those who smuggy go for the arguements that the seccession was for states rights or other issues before slavery. all you are saying is you approve that some local antidemocratic landownung cluque should have their rights protected before one of the greatest genocidal systems in history id dealt with. i surprised you aren;t waiting now for slavery to return as the south still needs rural street lights and lanes improved first. then we will get to the great historical racism amnd genpocide that they seems to have to trouble with.

and what did they do with the states rights? jim crow. the reintroduction of slavery for many of the poor blacks and certainly for all poor blacks who apoke out about even the smallest injustice amd tthe lack of a vote untill the sizties.

untill the south and the right look at themselves critically american democracy is threatened. america has been a democratic beakon for the world, but letting it slit away into the hands of the ingorant uneducated apologists for southern cruelty is a tragedy of historical proportions.

finally lee was a good manouverer, but unable to deal with either mead or grant who didn't respond and just sat tight and fought. his style of war farte had disappeared in the napoleonic era but he was lucky to be fighting northen armies that were not professionaly trained untill late in the war. his great opportunity at gettysburg was picketts and pettigrews charge, a frontal assault on an entrenched position, long after sharpburg showed that the firepower of the then modern armies could not be over come by fromtal assault without hugh numbers or other major advantages. he was an average profession general on the world scale. and he personally signed death warrants for black union prisoners.

here is the nub of the problem of the revisionists who defend him and the csa. killing people unjustly is never ok, its murder!! murderers are the cruelest people alive!!! and those who justify them are aiding and abetting criminals. if any union general did this they'd scream, but then really what the revisionists are saying is black deaths do not count.

again untill america leaves these delusionl ideas behind democracy is threatened, and what a tragedy for the land of liberty

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:34 PM

CAPITAL LETTERS PLEASE!!! STOP MUMBLING.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 10:01 PM

Geeze, I guess that Lee was the only person that murdered anyone during the unCivil War??? I mean, lets gets real here...People killed each other for no other reason than they were trying not to get killed themselves... Yeah, I've heard and read (unsubstantiated) claims that Lee ordered that black union POWs be executed... There's a major "Civil War" exhibit going on at the US Achieves in Washington, D.C. right now with thousands of letters and commands and orders on display and I'd invite anyone to come up with any proof that Lee had any policy of executing black union POW troops...

But nevermind that little sidebar for now... Yeah, I agree with most of what GUEST,ollainmh has said...

But like I have said many times, I would have told ol' Jefferson Davis to not let the door hit him on the way out... Ya'll want out??? Fine... Bye... Heck, if about 13 Southern States wanted out today I'd say the same thing... They are too expensive... Year after year the nation ends up subsidizing these folks... I mean, the South gets back more federal $$$$ then it pays in... Ya'll want out??? Bye...

(But, Boberdz... You live in the South...)

Yeah, I do... Goina' have to work out a few details...

But back to this Lee order to execute black union pows... Hey, I have never seen any proof that occured... Just accusations...

Lee being a great general??? Not really... Better teacher at V.M.I....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: ollaimh
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:35 PM

what a joke that the southerners fought for self determination. only if they could exclude up to forty percent of the population, in south carolina for example.

they fought for white determination. and jim crow laws showed they didn;t change

and ps to those who seek to attacj because of typing well the ignorant and uneducated bigots of all stripes prefer to attack on personal grounds rather than on issues.

i have a couple of major disabilities, and i bet i type better in english than any of you in french

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: ollaimh
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM

and of course the party of lincoln has wrought war crimes in many places. the reagan adminstration and many religious right sponsored rios mont in guatemala. mont massacred a quarter of a million mayan peasants because they were protesting that they wanted land.. must be communists eh?

these were the very people dispossed of their land by invasion and kept in that state by american arms over the last century. its really a shame there is no international war crimes tribunal that has teeth.

the gautemalian massacres are among the worst examples of genocidal war crimes in history but most americans care not. reagan was strong!! well so was hitler.

carter began turning away from that kind of foreigh abuse and people saw it as weakness.

ideas have currency over generations. if you are raised to think lee was a hero and a gentleman you would find nothing wrong with some mass murders "of the right people".

untill americans self examine about their history of war crimes they will never purge themselves of them and never put a stop to them.

most american have no idea that they over threw the democratically elected government of iran after the second world war. the insatlled the shah because mozadegh was going to nationalize the oil companies--like this was stoppable? the shah proceed to nationalize them and subject iran to decades of torture and criminal governmant. so now america reaps the result of that. again ideas have currency over time. if you thought a criminal like lee was a gentileman than maybe its ok to"break a few eggs to make an ommelet".

then to fight the iranian revolution rumsfeld in the reagan adminstration sold sadam hussein the componenets for making his poison gas. ideas have currency. but these approaches make millineal enemies. the vistors forget in a week what they did, but the victums never forget-- a century from now there will be attacks on america from iraqi's and iranians.

back to pois mont i noticed his main supporteer pat robertson was recently calling for the assination of chavez of venezula. and this is a christian? well he's a christian like robert e lee and ronald reagan. they think murder is ok as long as you kill the right people. well untill you cleanse these criminal ideas then there will be no real democracy in america.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:37 PM

Yeah, oll-ie, I'd love to see a real discussion on the war rather than the pablum that has been peddled... I mean, right down to revisiting the late 50's right up to Sumpter in '61... Seems that discussion never quite happens and its a shame it doesn't because seems that there is so much pent up hatred in the South that maybe an airin' of real history would be a good thing for everyone...

BTW, if you can make it to DC in the next couple months the exhibit at the National Achieves I'm sure will be fascinating... I hope to make it myself...

BTW, Lee ain't this Charles Manson character... Reagan??? Maybe... Lee, like a lot of West Pointers, just got caught up in some funky shit... I don't blame the grunts for the failure of politicians... Lee was just a grunt with more brass to carry around...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:27 AM

Actually, Bobert, the Civil War began with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) in 1798 and 1799 (proponents of the discredited "Compact Theory" of the Federal Government), the Missouri Compromise in 1830 and the South Carolina 1832 Ordinance of Nullification (yup, good ol' South Carolina again). Only got worse with the Compromise of 1850 & the Dredd Scott decision.

The Civil War had been going on for more than half a century before the shooting war started in Kansas in 1854.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:49 AM

Yeah, Greg... In essence, it did begin in the 1950s... Just escalated in Charleston and escalated big time at 1st Manassas...

I still think that Lincoln and Davis could have worked things out even after Manassas but by then it would have been very difficult... Lincoln probably would have had had to accept succession which would have prolly worked out a lot better in the long run for everyone...

(But, Boberdz... That means you support slavery...)

Bogus argument entirely...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Slag
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:24 PM

Yes Bobert, that's my original point. The what if's are endless and 20-20 hindsight makes us look like we know wherein we speak. What a luxury. If, somehow you could go back in time, you'd probably learn that no one is going to listen to you. You would be forced to take sides or become a hated and hunted pariah, especially if you were able bodied. Just think if the North had wholly invested in the Henry repeating rifle. Lincoln actually fired the weapon at the White House but wasn't sold on it, why? It certainly would have shortened the war. So many if's: so little foresight.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:07 PM

Not really, Slag...

Other than 20 years stuck in the mountains of Wes Ginny I am a Virginian... So, being so, I would have voted for the "Constitutional Union" presidential candidate, John Bell, in 1860 with the rest of my fellow Virginians...

BTW, the "Constitutional Union" Party carried not only Virginia, but also Kentucky and Tennessee...

But even with the 20/20 hindsight how many folks have ever considered states being able to say "See ya'"... Well, I've advocated that going back years here in Mudville and still feel that way... Folks think they don't want to be part of this deal then don't let the door hit ya'll on the way out...

Just my philosophy... Plus, the folks who say they want out are the folks who are doin' best on the federal dole... The northwest and the west coast (commie territory) have been carryin' the load for the crybabies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:58 PM

Bobert:

THe New York Times is running a series of revisitations to the headline pages of the years prior to the war. Interesting stuff. Here's one of the entries.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 12:08 AM

Abraham Lincoln correspondence from 1833 on. Part of the collection at the Library of Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Slag
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 02:49 AM

That is probably very representative of the southern slaveholders' attitudes. As I stated above many/most of them are descended from English aristocracy and it was this attitude of "I know best what's good for you." They didn't just believe their slaves were a race apart but perhaps a separate specie. Apalling. Fascinating.

I had opprotunity to read some of Lincoln's writings first hand at the Huntington Museum in Southern California quite a number of years ago. We are fortunate that he was such an avid and affable correspondent. Unfortunately .jpeg does not do the documents justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 07:52 AM

Thank you, Amos... The Post has some stuff coming out, as well... Oughtta be some interesting stuff.. I'll check out yer Times stuff later when I have more reading time...

B

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM

... the Henry repeating rifle. Lincoln actually fired the weapon at the White House...

Actually, no.

You're thinking of the Spencer repeating rifle & close to 200,000 were purchased during the war, in both carbine and infantry rifle models.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:54 AM

My first pistol was a cap and ball Colt
Shoot fast as lightnin' but loaded a might slow
Loaded a might slow
I soon found out
It'll get you into trouble
But won't get you out...

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM

I have a very hard time reading ollaimh's posts, but I have to correct one item I have excised from one of them. He says regarding Lee "he was an average profession general on the world scale." This is absolutely not true. Lee's battles, and most paricularly Chancellorsville, are still studied in military colleges world-wide.
At Chancellorsville, Lee was confronted with a Union army of over 100,000 men, the bulk of which had taken a position to the rear of his army. A large group also simultaneously confronted him at Fredricksburg.

An "average general" would have made the safe decision and retreated to defensive positions between the larger army and his capitol. Instead, and in defiance of standard tactical procedure, Lee divided his army, leaving a skeleton force in Fredricksburg to march, demonstrate, and keep the union force there from moving. He then marched the remainder of his army west to confront Hooker at Chancellorsville. Still outnumbered 2 to 1 by Hooker's forces, he divided his forces yet again to launch a surprise flank attack by having Jackson's men march south and west. The flank attack rolled up the Union line and threw the entire northern army around Chancellosville into panic.

It was only the substantially lower number of men at Lee's command and the accidental death of Jackson that kept Hooker's army from total destruction.

Olliamh implies that Lee was a tactical success, but not a strategic one. As I have said, the grand strategy of the Confederacy was to inflict defeat on the Union until the Union decided the sacrifice was not worth the goal. A complete and devastating defeat of the Army of the Potomac would also have accomplished this, and Lee strove for this in nearly every major battle, but had not the forces at his command. With anyone but Lincoln, this strategy might likely have worked. When this was realized, the strategy became wait out Lincoln and hope his unpopularity would lead to his defeat in 1864.

No, Lee is a consistent example of how a force with smaller overall numbers can be victorious by bringing a maximum of its power to bear at the crux of the battle. This is not a view of the "lost cause" apologists for the CSA. It is a recognized fact at West Point and other places where such things are studied.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

The Party of Lincoln can now be called The Greedy Old Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 02:12 PM

Except for the fact that the Republican Party of the 1860's was nothing like- in temperment, platform or tactics- the current party, and Abe would throw up if he saw what had become of it, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Slag
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 05:02 PM

Most likely you are right Greg F. Alas.

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: ollaimh
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 02:35 PM

lonesome is publishing american revisionist pablum lionizing a war criminal and genocidal monster. lee signed prders killing black prisioners.

as for boberts idiotic notion that because there were other murders then lees murderts were aok. thats called two wrtings make a right. but we have proof of lees involvement. all others who murdered should be equally recognized as the criminals they are.

and mcgrath shut up with you ignorant personal attacks. i realize you are so low as to think you are holy because you can type better than others. if that's all you have to fiier get some education, and stop being so ignorant in public. many people suffer major disabilites and should not be excluded because they affect typing

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 06:20 PM

No, I didn't say that at all, ollaimh... If you are going to argue with me, fine... Argue with things I have said and not things you wished I had said...

I'm not an eye for an eye kinda guy, btw... Just leaves two people blinded...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Party of Lincoln
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM

I wasn't making a personal attack, ollaimh - I assumed that not using capital letters was merely an affectation.

My impression is that that is generally the case with people online who just keep it all in lower case. I was wrong this time - sorry.