BS: Gettysburg Address

Subject: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM

On November 19, 1863, Lincoln delivered the address at the dedication of the national cemetery at the site of the battle at Gettysburg.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:51 PM

And your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: kendall
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:56 PM

He did NOT write it on the back of an envelope.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:56 PM

Obviously, remembrance of the many who died on both sides of a terrible conflict that shaped the future of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

This just came up in the thread about who wrote Shakespeare's works. I posted the Gettysburg address as an example of someone without much by way of a formal education.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 03:00 PM

Oh, you mean like GWB? *G* I'd like - or not - to read a speech that dubya wrote by himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 03:35 PM

Lincoln, in his first term in Congress, opposed the Mexican War, and disputed President Polk's word that the Mexicans had fired the first shot.

Not a parallel, of course, but it made me think of the argument over WMD and the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: GUEST,zippy
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:15 PM

That, like most wars, was a war of convenience...

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:20 PM

The man had a way with words.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:29 PM

Screw Lincoln!!!

Next the current one he was prolly the worst president we ever had...

No, make that worst, Bush II included...

Lincoln pushed the South into a war that neither side needed to fight...


He pitted brothyer agasinst brother...

This war weren't about slavery... that's just revisionism... Heck, there were slaves during the War for Southern Independence being kept in Lincoln's Washinton, D.C.!!!! Like what was that all about???

Would have been better to have two countries....

I mean, just look at Anietum.... Some 30,000 dead in one day!!! And over what???

Yeah, better to have two countries....

Plus lets look at the supposed "reconstruction" and the some 70 years of Jim Crow afterwards!!!! Terrorism aginst black folks....

This weren't 'bout nuthin but politics...

yeah, Lincoln is no hero... He was a jerk of jerks....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:32 PM

The man had a way with words.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: number 6
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:34 PM

ditto

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 12:16 AM

Hi, Bobert. Trying to kick a little life into a dull thread?
(

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Kaleea
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 12:24 AM

Golly, imagine having a President who can not only read, write & spell well, but also pronounce the words correctly.

That Gettysburg speech was a very important one in US history.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 12:36 AM

The Gettysburg address is an amazing text. It's very short, but manages to pack a lot into its few words. In saying that the land of the cemetery is consecrated by the blood of the soliders who died and not by later speeches of politicans and other dedicators, it stands as a document against spin doctoring, anda paean to the triumph of real actions and facts over mere rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

Bobert--

How would you have resolved the issue without a war? Let the South (with slavery) go its own way?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 09:21 AM

Lets compare and contrast for a moment...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushlincoln1.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 09:50 AM

The USA was the dream that the civil war was fought over. A nation devoted to the principle of freedom.

Its the sacrifice of the civil war dead which gave us the nation which freed men and women from Belsen to the Gulag. It has resisted German, Soviet and now Islamic extremist imperialism.

Two smaller weaker countries would not have had that moral clout.

I am English and can see that we were lucky to have such a nation as our ally in ww2.

As an American, how can you fail to see that?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM

We do not fail to see that. We can however see a re birth of fascism by people with immeasurable wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM

Fascism is a little strong. And the thread has to do with the Gettysburg Address. I'm still waiting for an answer--from anybody--on how Lincoln was to solve the curse of the birth of the US --slavery--without the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 12:08 PM

the stinking rich have always been a repulsive lot. that's a bit of an irrelevancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 12:46 PM

Well, Ron, at the outbreak of the War there had allready begun a vigorous abolitionist movement both in the North as well as the South... The attitudes towar slavery werew slowly but surely evolving and like everything else, things do take time... Given the bitterness after the War, especially by Southerners, after 1776 when the Union troops ended their occupation of the South, blacks suffered from a 8 decades of Jim Crow terrorism.

There are areas in the South even today where there is so much bottled up hatred of "Yankees" by white folks that they tend to continue to harass and hurt their black neighbors...

Now it is not a a better skilled Lincoln could have headed off the War and put used [political pressure to facilitate an atmosphere where more folks in the South would at least give some second thoughts to the slavery issue...

And also consider this, Ron. The South lost a good portion of their "educated" male population ihn the War and it was these people who would have been the folks in the best position to effect cultural and attitudinal changes...

This war should never have happened...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 02:24 PM

Bobert--

So how long should blacks have had to wait before slavery ended? As it did with the end of the war ---yes, I know share-cropping, KKK etc. was not wonderful--but would continued slavery have been better?)

Do you honestly think that if slavery had died a "natural death" there would have been no lynchings of blacks and no Jim Crow laws. And how long before this "natural death?

As I said, slavery was the curse of the birth of the US. After the 3/5 rule was accepted--and without it, many southern states would not have signed the Constitution--the eventual clash was unavoidable. The southern cotton economy made it worse--by making both many in the south (and indirectly many in the north) very prosperous--at the cost of an entirely slave-based economy

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 03:47 PM

"There are areas in the South even today where there is so much bottled up hatred of "Yankees" by white folks that they tend to continue to harass and hurt their black neighbors..."

So, you understand then why when Bush was mad at Al Queda he invaded Iraq. Sorry Bobert, but that just don't make sense.

Incidentally, slavery was an 'issue' in the US (then British or French colonies) since the early 1600s. The Civil War started in 1861. So, slavery lasted 'officially' for about 240 years. So, are you saying it should have been allowed to continue?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:24 PM

Who fired on Fort Sumpter?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:30 PM

"at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861 the Confederates began the first battle of the Civil War"

Beauregard following the orders of Davis.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 04:31 PM

Bobert old buddy, that was a rhetorical question, we all know who fired the first shot of the war. What you said reminds me of the one about the little boy who came home with a black eye. Dad says "How did you get that black eye"? boy says, "It all started when he hit me back."

Seriously, much of it WAS politics. The south had a huge advantage in their slave labor, but, the way I see it, both sides made a huge mistake. The south believed that Lincoln would never be elected. They were dead wrong. The north believed that the south would not leave the union. They were dead wrong. As a result, 600,000 were dead dead.And we still look to politicians for guidance.
..."When will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn...

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 05:57 PM

Well, Bruce, you'd prolly have to live in the South to understand the way that there are still large number to white folks who continue to blame black folks fir their own failings... Let's face it, the South took a real beatin', especially when Sherman puit the final psycological nail in it's coffin by burnin' as much of the South as he could...

Then there was the bitter "occuaption" (reconsteruction, ha...) and when the Union troops left there was so much hatred that got tarnsferred onto the blacks...

And, Ron, do you think slavery would have continued past WW I, if that long??? I don't... But Jim Crow was still going strong well into the 50's and it wasn't until Brown V. Topeka Bord of Education in '54 and the '65 Civil Right Act where ol' Jim styarted to fade...

Hey, I'm not sayin' that slavery was right because it was as immoral as anything I can think of but Jim Crow was just a half a step behind it and some cases, worse...

As fir Ft. Sumpter??? Kinda reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin situation.... Have you been to Charleston, S.C., Kendall, ol' buddy, and been to the Battery.... Well, from the battery you can barely see Ft Sumpter, it's so far off... Now when you think of the artillery of 1861 you would have to have more luck than yer hunter in yer huntin' story just to hit the island, let alone hurt anyone...

But, Ft. Sumpter is like a side bar here...

The real issue is, sadly, about politics and Lincoln didn't understand the Southern culture and didn't make the effort to defuse a bad situation....

And, please, folks, no more arguin' that this war was fought over slavery... If it were then there wouldn't have been slaves in Washington, D.C. when the war broke out, would there???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:12 PM

As long as governments can keep people hating each other, then those people will seldom look around and see who's really causing them the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM

Ya' got that right, Bruce...

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 06:52 PM

Bobert, ole buddy, you have got to be kiddin'! Much as I like you, you are way off the deep end here. And the first sign of intellectual weakness in an argument is when someone says "you don't live here, so you can't understand.....".

While it is true that this war was caused by other issues, such as states rights, etc, these were among the issues. Slavery was full a part of this equation, if not one of the leading causes.

To suggest that if Lincoln had just left it alone, slavery would have disappeared is the most ludicrous thing I have heard. Shall we apply that same logic to the Nazi's? Or any of the great ills? The by product of any revolution is that mistakes, such as Jim Crow, will happen as the pendulum swings between radical positions.

Another inaccuracy in your oversimplistic "if slavery were the issue, then there wouldn't have been slaves in Washington .... " argument. First off, there was a huge seccessionist movement in DC. It does, after all sit on the edge of the South. There were anti Lincoln agitators all through the city. It was very much a divided town. Your assertion is gratuitous and can just as gratuitously be denied.

Greatness happens in spite of human failings. Among us mere mortals, it is those who rise above and take the risk for mankind that results in a better place that are remembered. Lincoln fits this on all levels. And his Gettysburg Address is one of mankinds most important speeches.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:00 PM

Who said it was fought over slavery? Lincoln said if he could maintain the union without freeing one slave, then he would. He had the vision to see what your country could be, if you stuck together.

It was fought over the union. wasn't it? And that's what the war decided.

surely the best way to honour those who gave their lives is to make the union work.

Bobert with all the great achievements of your country, I can't see how you could wish the union not in place.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:12 PM

No, MIck, I never said that or meant to imply that slavery would "just" disappear... It still would have involved a major struggle, much the way the Civil Rights movement or the anit-war movements were struggles... And stuff would have happened that wouldn't be too purdy... But it would have happened... And it wopuld have happened without Lincoln's stupid war... ASnd it very well might have happened before 1954... I'm thinkin' that WW I would have been the outter limits...

I am suggestin' that the War was a set back for the country, fir whites and fir blacks... Can I prove it? No! Can you prove I'm wrong? No!

But one thing fir sure... America wouldn't have this eternal dirty little not-to-secret...

As much as folks make such an effort to gloify this sad chapter, they will never wipe clean the stains... Maybe that's why they spend so much time glorifying it... I just wish that had the power to trasport each person who thinks that Lincoln's War was justified back to Antietam, or Gettysburg, or Petersburg, or Fredricksburg, or Richmond fir just 10 seconds and then return them to the here and now....

There was nothing glorious about Lincoln's war and there was nothing glorious about fightin or dieing in it...

Maybe this is a tough pill to contimplate beause it has been so thouroughly sanitized thru revisons and rewrites...

Slavery would be long over with either way and ther USA or the USA and the CSA woyuld be better off today had it not been fought...

That is my opinion...

And no, it is not an unfair argument to say some thing like, "Hey, you didn't grow up in the South"... Nothin' unfair about it... I grew up in Virginia, which though the most northern o0f the CSA states is very much a Southern state, both in its history and it's culture...

Si when I talk about this I don't mean it to be a testimonial er nuthin' but stuff I have observed in my life... Not much different than sharing guitar tabs fir a song... Don't make me better 'er worse... Has nuthin' to do with that kind of stuff... Just gives me a different perspective on some things, perhaps...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:53 PM

Lincoln did say, at one point before 1862, that if he could preserve the Union without freeing one slave, he would. But he evolved in his perception of slavery--before the Civil War, he was endorsing ideas of sending the slaves back to Africa.

He came to realize that they had the right both to be free and to stay in the US--and that emancipation was both good politics (to keep the UK from joining the southern cause) and simple justice (yes, I know the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves immediately--but at that point his intention was freedom for all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 07:58 PM

Bobert--

Do you really think blacks should have waited til after World War I for the end of slavery?

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:09 PM

Lincoln made a speech in congress on September 18, 1858 in which he said he was not favourably disposed to freeing slaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:51 PM

Bobert, the same could be said for all wars. The same could be said for WWII, WWI, any of them. All wars have a terrible by product, all wars cause bad before they yield the good. And they never totally solve the problems. WWII didn't solve the problems of intolerance, in fact a good argument could be made it spawned the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. Would that be a good reason to condemn taking down the Nazi's?

I think I get where you are coming from, and accept the nature of it. I don't think you are condemning the abolition of slavery. I know you to be a fine person, a tolerant person, and a middling (nyuk nyuk) bluesman. I just think you are off base on this one. Let us agree to disagree.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

Well, Ron, given the way things have gone down, yeah, maybe I could have reluctantly accepted slavery fir another 60 years if it meant that Jim Crow would have died with it... Problem is, black folks were still livin' in terror and being lynched up until the 60's in the South...

The cost to the nation to replace slavery with Jim Crow was not, IMHO, worth it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:58 PM

As I said, Lincoln's views on this evolved--towards emancipation.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 11:30 PM

Indeed they did, Ron. He wasn't only a good writer; he was also a good man.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM

Not to sound too contrary here but sounds like both you fine fellers have learnt up the revised and sanitized version of the story... If either of you would like some readin' material I can suggest a good book that might just give you another glimpse... The name of the book is "Lincoln" but unfortunately its packed away in abox so I can't give you the writer's name...

And "emancipation" while sounding very noble meant "now yer free, you got nuthin', we ain't givin' ya nuthin' so fir most former slaves living in the South it meant another hundred years of poverty and abuse and things didn't start changing until the 50's...

Last year I had the priveldge of spending a little time with Sam Carr, who has played drums with various blues players over the years. Sam is in his early 70's now and he and his wife live in a two room shack 'bout 1/2 miles off Highway 61 in the middle of the Mississippi Delta...

Well, Sam's was showin' us some photographs and telling stories 'bout the way thing used to be when he was a young man and he related a story 'bout workin' the door at a juke joint... Now workin' the door meant he was the pistol man... He said that's why he started playin' the drums 'cause he didn't like pistol duty... Well, seems that it weren't unusual fir a fight to break out on a Saturday night and someone shot another someone... "Sometimes the law would come and sometimes they wouldn't", Sam said, "An' if they did come, they'd take the shooter in but come Monday mornin' the 'boss man" come an' get him out an' have him back on the tractor 'er in the fields..."

Yeah, "emancipation" means different things to different folks. That's the point I have been tryin' to make here. What Lincoln did, while on paper sounded very couargous, if takin' historically was nuthin' but a political trick... Had he done it in '61, 'er 62 it might have meant more... But waitin' until the CSA was ion the ropes seemed a little Bush-ish to me... Plus, if there was such an interest in the well being of black folks then why weren't these folks provided with anything with which to start a real life... Here we are some 140 some years later and we still can't talk about repairations....

No, you guys can keep Lincoln yer hero's list... I 'll take a pass...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

I bet you wouldn't have waited half as reluctantly as the poor bastards who had to wait an extra 60 years in slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:50 PM

Depends, wee... If I had my house torched, my wife beaten to death and me hangin' from the ol' oak tree in after reconstrction ended in '76, bet yer little drum I'd rather wait...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 01:08 PM

While I take your point, Bobert, I find it demagogic and unrealistic. I have yet to see effective change without strife and missteps. They are a natural part of the process. In effect, one cannot see the brutality of the KKK unless they operate the way they do. That is not to say that I am glad it happened, just that it is the way of it.

When one does a thorough read of the times, including Lincoln's evolving nature, and puts all this in the context of the times (socially and politically) it is hard to imagine a different route that could have been taken to achieve the result. And when one examines this issue, and compares it to other "social revolutions" I believe that they would find that a hundred years to begin to achieve the result is not out of ordinary.

I believe Bobert's contention comes from his innate goodness. I believe it comes from his personal experiences, desires, and empathy for the put upon people. While I disagree mightily with his contention, I find myself liking this down to earth realist more and more.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 01:17 PM

If the war had been avoided, plantation managers would soon have realized that freeing the slaves and hiring them, with share-cropping relationships, would be cheaper than maintaining a costly system with expensive slaves that had to be fed, housed and maintained in order to keep them picking their 200 pounds. Moreover, the labor force could have been supplemented by the large number of poor whites.

No, I haven't really thought about this, but I remember it from a history class long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 02:18 PM

all very well, but slavery for god sake..........

isn't it all a bit like these people who say Saddam Hussein would have fallen anyway. Hitler could have been stopped from getting to power in the first place.

the trouble is that in there are some real villains and they don't give up power easily, and they are clever and cunning and resourceful - and you can wait for them to die, like Stalin - but they ruin a lot of lives while you're waiting. another 60 years of slavery?....... some people made it as free men in that time, and started to set examples that others could aspire to, and generally kick start civilisation.

sometimes you just have to oppose evil, confront it. Not all the people fighting in the devil's cohorts will be evil, and that's a damned pity.

some people saw the fight against slavery as just such a cause. and if you'd been a slave, I think that's exactly how it would have felt.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: PeteBoom
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 03:22 PM

Ahem.

Lincoln won a 4-way race for President, where election day was November 6, 1860. On November 14, the Georgia legislature was addressed on secession. On November 30, Mississippi passed resolutions supporting secession. South Carolina followed suit in December of 1860. January 9, 1861, Mississippi seceded from the Union, followed in short order by Florida, Georgia, Louisiana. Texas seceded on February 1, 1861.

On February 18, 1861, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as President of the Confederate States of America.

On March 4, 1861, Lincoln was inagurated as 16th President of the United States.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued following the Battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam, 17 September, 1862. Tactically it was a draw - bloody mess in reality, where Lee's forces survived because he faced an inept opponent. It was close enough to a Federal victory, however, to allow him to issue the Proclamation without looking like a desperate gamble - instead it looked like a piece of political gamesmanship. It was.

However, it took effect on January 1, 1863, freeing all persons held in slavery in those areas in rebellion and not controlled by federal forces. As for the Confederacy being on the ropes in early 1863, hogwash.

The relatively newly appointed Federal commander along the Mississippi took a gamble and won - tremendously. IN doing so, by the way, the strategy he used was the same recommended by Winfield Scott in early 1861 and rejected by the political types. Scott (and Grant) both reasoned that by controlling the Mississippi, the war would be decided in the East, and any activity West of the Mississippi would do little to change the outcome. They were right.

On the other hand, Lee gambled strongly in the East, and lost. He failed in his objective and lost most of his offensive strength doing so. The same day his Army of Northern Virginia began its withdrawl from Pennsylvania, Grant's victory at Vicksburg was secured, July 4, 1863. From that point, no significant Confederate units moved East to reinforce the armies in Virginia and other locations. If he had beaten Meade, however, he would have been in position to move on nearly any Northern city he chose, including Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia or New York, with no real forces able to oppose him.

The fact was, the Army of the Potomac was demoralized and dispirited following several defeats in succession, thanks mainly due to the inept commanders it was burdened with. What fighting spirit remained was the result of belief in its own strength. Regiments believed in their own officers and in the strength of the units in their brigades as they were proven under fire - not in the politicians and "west pointers".

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 03:39 PM

Nah, wee-zer, ain't like Saddam or Hitler and if you think it is you're not following my train of thought here too well... At the outbreak of the War there was already a strong abolishment movement going in both what were to become the Union as well as in the the states that comprised the CSA...

Movements are different than dictators because they involve cultural and attitudinal changes as opposed to coup's...

If you'll read Q'd post above this might just give you some insight into the "what's in it for me?" part of rationale of planatation owners... Like Bruce Springsteen say's, "Sooner or later it all comes down to money" and if for no other reason than that, plantation owners would have figgured out that slavery wasn't exactly econimical...

An, Mick, yes, had the war not been fought it would have taken a struggle, much like the Civil Rights movement... I pointed that out above... And I'm sure some folks would have died, and that is terrible... But when one compares the deaths and the hardships that would have resulted in something which probably would have been similar to the Civil Rights movement with the death and hardships from the War, this is a no brainer...

And I can't overstate my case that the war wiped out the educated, and somewhat enlightened, Southern male... These folks would have been the very folks that would have become allies with the abolishinists down the road... This is a very important point...

Now it's hard to view history in terms of "what-ifs" but as supposed civilized people it is an exercise the would do use all well as mankind to this very day tends to shoot first and ask questions later...

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 04:24 PM

Slavery, like our current forms of torture was perfectly legal.
Criminalizing what was formerly legal is done all the time.
Those with the money and influence to make the laws will win.
For the South to decide to take their ball and go home rather than stay in the Union under the laws set forth by the Union was mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Gettysburg Address
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:55 PM

Well, true enuff, Donuel, but, as things are today, in 1860 there wer no remaining Founding Fathers to ask "Ahhhh, what did you mean by this 'er that?" and folks tended to have their own interpretations...

Most of the folks in The South thought that the strenght of the Union came from its member states and not vice versa... In other words, the Union existed because of the states...

Now as fir the South being on the ropes after Antietam, that is very much debatable... They had done a decent job holding the Union at bay in the valley campaign and the battles around Richmond but these were purely defensive battles... Sharpsburg, however, was a different story indeed and just by virtue of the losses there in men, weaponry and supplies there set the course for the rest of the war... I mean, lets keep in perspective that the South needed to make inroads into the Northern territory for material and supplies and by late '62, the pickins were gettin a tad on thin side in the South...

Yeah, with 20/20 hindsight, Vicksburg would have made a huge difference but by this time Lee had lost Thomas Jackson and had too many fronts to supply, plus havin' to maintain armies north, west and south of Richmond... Had it not been fir the swamps to the east he would have had to fortify that front as well...

Bobert