Brilliantlight
Banned
Derek Jackson said:
I tend to agree with that since it is obviously a lie. It makes people take you less seriously.
Lincoln gets three terms
- Thread starter Macsporan
- Start date
- Status
I tend to agree with that since it is obviously a lie. It makes people take you less seriously.
Wow
I Guess we can say the scars of the Civil war still run deep since most Normal otherwise rational peopel seem to lose all control when the subject comes up.
reading this thread from the start gives some idea of what it must have been like to sit in Congress during the 1850's.
Name calling,Meeting on the field of Honor , same things led to the Sumpter/Brooks attack on the floor of the Senate.
If I may add to the debate with out getting into the name calling or challenges to duel I will add a few points to be considered.
1)One Cause of the War wasn't the existance of Slavery but its limitation.
The Republicans were at first known as Free Soilers who opposed the admission of more slave territory into the union.
The South held that addmission of Free territory with out additional Slave states would destroy the balance of power in Congress tilting the advantage of power to the Northern Big Bussiness men and away from Southern Agriculture.
No one really expected to End Slavery in the 1860's as most plans created by the Abolitionist called for Compensated manumission , and Linclon himself early on endorsed a plan that would have ended Slavery by 1900.
yes Slavery was wrong and evil..but in 1860 ,except for a fringe core of radical abolitionist, no one North or South saw its end as a Major cause for a war.
2)Linclon was in a tough spot from the time he was nominated because of a great deal of disinformation on his views and his refusal to make any statements before taking office to clear them up.
The South was against him more for what he might do than for what he stated he would do.
Linclon saw no reason short of suppresing rebellion for interfering with Slavery in any territory where it already existed ,as proved by the fact that Slavery still existed in the District of Columbia during the war years as well as the border States such as Maryland.
3) As much as we like to whitewash our intentions a sad fact is most wars arn't great moral crusades no matter how much we wish they were.
The Northern Yank or Southern Confederate didn't march off to end or defend slavery with banners held high... they marched off for the same reason as many others have ..The price of bread.
Like their 1776 ancestors the Civil War Generation was driven by economics
High Tarriffs pushed by Northern Business to keep cheaper English Goods out of the Country placed a heavy burden on Southern Imports.
Cotton sent to England could not buy an equal amount of goods to ship home.
Northern Manufacturers pushed higher and higher import duties while trying to make a captive market of the South with More expensive ,less well made goods.
Tarriff Reform took up far more debate in Congress from 1800 to 1860 than Slavery ever did and almost caused the South to Leave the Union during the Jackson Administration.
4) The Plantation Myth of Slavery - Not a Handful of men in the prewar South owned a Hundred slaves. Slavery was an expensive institution to maintain and operate even if as depicted in Hollywood's various movies done on a bare substance level for the slave. Every Slave must be fed and have adaquate medical care if maximum work is to be gained from him or her and there are losses from those to young or old to do labor.
Even in the days of King Cotton slavery was an economic burden and fading institution doomed to death as soon as the cotton markets took another serious downturn as they did in the mid 1840's.
Most of the ~Great Southern Plantations~ consisted of a Farmer ,his wife and children ,one man to help with the field work and a woman to help with the house work.
The Farmer worked the fields with his Slave and the Slave ate and was clothed just as well as his owner and could eventually earn his freedom .
Sorry Guys the Sittin on the Veranda sippin a Mint Julip didn't happen all that often.
This should not be taken as an apology nor support for Slavery or the war itself, just a few facts often over looked by those who have agendas to push.
James
I Guess we can say the scars of the Civil war still run deep since most Normal otherwise rational peopel seem to lose all control when the subject comes up.
reading this thread from the start gives some idea of what it must have been like to sit in Congress during the 1850's.
Name calling,Meeting on the field of Honor , same things led to the Sumpter/Brooks attack on the floor of the Senate.
If I may add to the debate with out getting into the name calling or challenges to duel I will add a few points to be considered.
1)One Cause of the War wasn't the existance of Slavery but its limitation.
The Republicans were at first known as Free Soilers who opposed the admission of more slave territory into the union.
The South held that addmission of Free territory with out additional Slave states would destroy the balance of power in Congress tilting the advantage of power to the Northern Big Bussiness men and away from Southern Agriculture.
No one really expected to End Slavery in the 1860's as most plans created by the Abolitionist called for Compensated manumission , and Linclon himself early on endorsed a plan that would have ended Slavery by 1900.
yes Slavery was wrong and evil..but in 1860 ,except for a fringe core of radical abolitionist, no one North or South saw its end as a Major cause for a war.
2)Linclon was in a tough spot from the time he was nominated because of a great deal of disinformation on his views and his refusal to make any statements before taking office to clear them up.
The South was against him more for what he might do than for what he stated he would do.
Linclon saw no reason short of suppresing rebellion for interfering with Slavery in any territory where it already existed ,as proved by the fact that Slavery still existed in the District of Columbia during the war years as well as the border States such as Maryland.
3) As much as we like to whitewash our intentions a sad fact is most wars arn't great moral crusades no matter how much we wish they were.
The Northern Yank or Southern Confederate didn't march off to end or defend slavery with banners held high... they marched off for the same reason as many others have ..The price of bread.
Like their 1776 ancestors the Civil War Generation was driven by economics
High Tarriffs pushed by Northern Business to keep cheaper English Goods out of the Country placed a heavy burden on Southern Imports.
Cotton sent to England could not buy an equal amount of goods to ship home.
Northern Manufacturers pushed higher and higher import duties while trying to make a captive market of the South with More expensive ,less well made goods.
Tarriff Reform took up far more debate in Congress from 1800 to 1860 than Slavery ever did and almost caused the South to Leave the Union during the Jackson Administration.
4) The Plantation Myth of Slavery - Not a Handful of men in the prewar South owned a Hundred slaves. Slavery was an expensive institution to maintain and operate even if as depicted in Hollywood's various movies done on a bare substance level for the slave. Every Slave must be fed and have adaquate medical care if maximum work is to be gained from him or her and there are losses from those to young or old to do labor.
Even in the days of King Cotton slavery was an economic burden and fading institution doomed to death as soon as the cotton markets took another serious downturn as they did in the mid 1840's.
Most of the ~Great Southern Plantations~ consisted of a Farmer ,his wife and children ,one man to help with the field work and a woman to help with the house work.
The Farmer worked the fields with his Slave and the Slave ate and was clothed just as well as his owner and could eventually earn his freedom .
Sorry Guys the Sittin on the Veranda sippin a Mint Julip didn't happen all that often.
This should not be taken as an apology nor support for Slavery or the war itself, just a few facts often over looked by those who have agendas to push.
James
GillBill said:
James, yours is one of the most intelligent posts on this subject I have read on this board. My hat is off to you.
Brilliantlight
Banned
GillBill said:I Guess we can say the scars of the Civil war still run deep since most Normal otherwise rational peopel seem to lose all control when the subject comes up.
reading this thread from the start gives some idea of what it must have been like to sit in Congress during the 1850's.
Name calling,Meeting on the field of Honor , same things led to the Sumpter/Brooks attack on the floor of the Senate.
If I may add to the debate with out getting into the name calling or challenges to duel I will add a few points to be considered.
1)One Cause of the War wasn't the existance of Slavery but its limitation.
The Republicans were at first known as Free Soilers who opposed the admission of more slave territory into the union.
The South held that addmission of Free territory with out additional Slave states would destroy the balance of power in Congress tilting the advantage of power to the Northern Big Bussiness men and away from Southern Agriculture.
No one really expected to End Slavery in the 1860's as most plans created by the Abolitionist called for Compensated manumission , and Linclon himself early on endorsed a plan that would have ended Slavery by 1900.
yes Slavery was wrong and evil..but in 1860 ,except for a fringe core of radical abolitionist, no one North or South saw its end as a Major cause for a war.
2)Linclon was in a tough spot from the time he was nominated because of a great deal of disinformation on his views and his refusal to make any statements before taking office to clear them up.
The South was against him more for what he might do than for what he stated he would do.
Linclon saw no reason short of suppresing rebellion for interfering with Slavery in any territory where it already existed ,as proved by the fact that Slavery still existed in the District of Columbia during the war years as well as the border States such as Maryland.
3) As much as we like to whitewash our intentions a sad fact is most wars arn't great moral crusades no matter how much we wish they were.
The Northern Yank or Southern Confederate didn't march off to end or defend slavery with banners held high... they marched off for the same reason as many others have ..The price of bread.
Like their 1776 ancestors the Civil War Generation was driven by economics
High Tarriffs pushed by Northern Business to keep cheaper English Goods out of the Country placed a heavy burden on Southern Imports.
Cotton sent to England could not buy an equal amount of goods to ship home.
Northern Manufacturers pushed higher and higher import duties while trying to make a captive market of the South with More expensive ,less well made goods.
Tarriff Reform took up far more debate in Congress from 1800 to 1860 than Slavery ever did and almost caused the South to Leave the Union during the Jackson Administration.
4) The Plantation Myth of Slavery - Not a Handful of men in the prewar South owned a Hundred slaves. Slavery was an expensive institution to maintain and operate even if as depicted in Hollywood's various movies done on a bare substance level for the slave. Every Slave must be fed and have adaquate medical care if maximum work is to be gained from him or her and there are losses from those to young or old to do labor.
Even in the days of King Cotton slavery was an economic burden and fading institution doomed to death as soon as the cotton markets took another serious downturn as they did in the mid 1840's.
Most of the ~Great Southern Plantations~ consisted of a Farmer ,his wife and children ,one man to help with the field work and a woman to help with the house work.
The Farmer worked the fields with his Slave and the Slave ate and was clothed just as well as his owner and could eventually earn his freedom .
Sorry Guys the Sittin on the Veranda sippin a Mint Julip didn't happen all that often.
This should not be taken as an apology nor support for Slavery or the war itself, just a few facts often over looked by those who have agendas to push.
James
Actually the South was upset because they couldn't expand slavery after the Dred Scott decision into the North. Lincoln would have tried to get an admendment to the Constitution to stop that and if the North could get more free states in it would have passed. The South was all for state's rights when it preserved slavery but against them when it was for keeping slavery out of states.
Brilliantlight said:
Where is your evidence that the South wanted to expand slavery into the North? Did they want equal access to the Western Territories? Definitely. But I have never ever read anywhere that they wanted to expand into the Northern states.
Brilliantlight said:
First of all, even if the Dred Scott Decision DID say that slavery was legal everywhere in the United States, despite State laws to the contrary...which it didn't...the Dred Scott decision would not, in itself, be evidence that the South wanted to expand slavery into the Northern States. The Dred Scott case was not brought into the courts by Southern pro-slavery extremists. It was brought by Dred Scott himself, who was seeking his freedom.
The Dred Scott decision says nothing about introducing slavery into states which have abolished it. When you boil it all down, the Dred Scott decision says the following...
1) Blacks were not citizens of the United States. They had no right to sue in Federal court.
2) No law passed by a State could make a black person a citizen of the United States. Although a State might enact laws which make blacks citizens of their own State, the passage of such laws did not confer upon blacks within that State the status of citizen of the UNITED STATES. So while a black may have been conferred citizenship by a State, this applies ONLY WITHIN that State. If the black leaves that State, his citizenship doesn't go with him.
3) Territory acquired by the United States is acquired by the People of the United States, through the Federal Government as their agent and trustee. The Federal Government has no right to favor citizens of one State over those of another in it's administration of those Territories. Citizens of all States must be given equal access to it, with their property, including slave property.
Nothing in the Dred Scott decision changed the right of States to enact, within their own borders, whatever laws they pleased, so long as those laws did not conflict with the Constitution. If a State wanted to abolish slavery, it had the perfect right to do so. But the Federal Government, according to the decision, had no right to abolish slavery in Territories it holds as the common agent of all the States.
So the decision does not support your argument that the South wanted to expand slavery into the North, nor did it make such a thing possible to accomplish.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/
Brilliantlight
Banned
robertp6165 said:
Last time I checked much of the territory in question was north of the Mason/Dixie line.
Macsporan
Banned
Continued Amazement
For a start, Bravo Bill. A little acid-tongued but your heart is certainly in the right place.
Good to have an ally or two in this Southron wilderness.
Some of them are even mounting defences of John Wilkes Booth--a man who had a huge Civil War laid on where he could go and shoulder a rifle and lie in the mud in defence of his racist beliefs but instead he chose the soft life of an actor and when it was all over snuck up and shot the defenceless Lincoln in the back of the head.
If he wasn't a coward then the word has no meaning.
Yes I know that most Southerners didn't own hundreds of slaves. Those who did, the planter class, completely dominated Southern political, social and economic life. It was in defence of their interests that the Civil War was fought.
Good heavens! Don't you even understand the political dynamics of your own Civil War?
All this stuff about tarrifs is of little significance. It would never have amounted to anything by itself--it didn't provoke secession either before or after.
For me the clinching evidence that the ACW was essentially about slavery was that after Appomatox there was no further significant political effort to bring about a Southern nation.
If you compare this to the Irish, the Poles or the Vietmanese who just kept on rebelling generation after generation until they were free it is obvious that the roots of Southern nationalism were shallow indeed.
With slavery and the planter class both gone so was the rationale of Southern republic. The Confederacy was all a put-up job, an incredible act of greed, arrogance and folly on the part of a small elite of ignorant, cruel, bone-headed meglomaniacs who were willing to gamble the lives of a generation to protect their right buy and sell human beings like cattle.
Robertp6165, yes anyone who defends the Confederacy is a racist, even if you carefully and cleverly marshall a lawyer's brief on its behalf.
The Elephant in the living room is still there and no amount of shallow,evasive patter is going to get rid of it.
My understanding of the Dred Scot case is that it called into question laws passed in the North outlawing slavery, paving the way for its reintroduction everywhere.
In the context of the times it was the legal equivalent of spitting in the North's face.
No wonder 60% voted for Lincoln.
For a start, Bravo Bill. A little acid-tongued but your heart is certainly in the right place.
Good to have an ally or two in this Southron wilderness.
Some of them are even mounting defences of John Wilkes Booth--a man who had a huge Civil War laid on where he could go and shoulder a rifle and lie in the mud in defence of his racist beliefs but instead he chose the soft life of an actor and when it was all over snuck up and shot the defenceless Lincoln in the back of the head.
If he wasn't a coward then the word has no meaning.
Yes I know that most Southerners didn't own hundreds of slaves. Those who did, the planter class, completely dominated Southern political, social and economic life. It was in defence of their interests that the Civil War was fought.
Good heavens! Don't you even understand the political dynamics of your own Civil War?
All this stuff about tarrifs is of little significance. It would never have amounted to anything by itself--it didn't provoke secession either before or after.
For me the clinching evidence that the ACW was essentially about slavery was that after Appomatox there was no further significant political effort to bring about a Southern nation.
If you compare this to the Irish, the Poles or the Vietmanese who just kept on rebelling generation after generation until they were free it is obvious that the roots of Southern nationalism were shallow indeed.
With slavery and the planter class both gone so was the rationale of Southern republic. The Confederacy was all a put-up job, an incredible act of greed, arrogance and folly on the part of a small elite of ignorant, cruel, bone-headed meglomaniacs who were willing to gamble the lives of a generation to protect their right buy and sell human beings like cattle.
Robertp6165, yes anyone who defends the Confederacy is a racist, even if you carefully and cleverly marshall a lawyer's brief on its behalf.
The Elephant in the living room is still there and no amount of shallow,evasive patter is going to get rid of it.
My understanding of the Dred Scot case is that it called into question laws passed in the North outlawing slavery, paving the way for its reintroduction everywhere.
In the context of the times it was the legal equivalent of spitting in the North's face.
No wonder 60% voted for Lincoln.
Last edited:
Macsporan
Banned
Back to the main event
Because Lincoln was killed by a coward in 1865 people tend to think of him only in relation to the Civil War.
We're hoping here that he lived longer.
I'm sorry to here he had a fatal genetic complaint. What a sad, terrible life the poor man had.
What would have been his take on other issues of the late sixties, early seventies?
Labour relations? The power of corporations to maintain private armies of security guards and break strikes by brute force?
Indian affairs? The Transcontinential Railway? Robber barons? Political corruption? Immigration? Black Civil Rights?
Speak.
Because Lincoln was killed by a coward in 1865 people tend to think of him only in relation to the Civil War.
We're hoping here that he lived longer.
I'm sorry to here he had a fatal genetic complaint. What a sad, terrible life the poor man had.
What would have been his take on other issues of the late sixties, early seventies?
Labour relations? The power of corporations to maintain private armies of security guards and break strikes by brute force?
Indian affairs? The Transcontinential Railway? Robber barons? Political corruption? Immigration? Black Civil Rights?
Speak.
As applying to anti-slavery laws, Dred Scott only applied to territories. Thouhg, with the exception I believe of the last chunks of the Old Northwest and the remaining Oregon Territories, most territories had slavery-by-popular-soverignty (Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly neither Kansas nor Nebraska ever had popular soverigently votes before the Civil War) at that time, and the Old Northwest and Oregon had enough white settlers from the north to make slavery there unlikely. What the South wanted was the Mexican Territories, of which a large free state (California), and a large slave state (Texas) had already been created. Kansas wouldn't have hurt either.
Yes, Southern Secessionism dissapeared after the Civil War. As did New England secessionism. And any other secessionism. The Civil War had established that states could not secede. It did by bloody war, but it did it nonetheless. Because of the massive defeat secessionists gained, they were pushed as far to the margins as a modern Anti-Semite party would be.
The confederecy was slave-owning, and it seceded because it feared its rights would be taken away by the more populous North. Yes, slavery was one of those rights, but that does not make all Confederate supporters racists, no more than those who give the pre-Civil War United States much support are racists. Slavery was evil, yes. But there was more to the Confederacy than slavery.
And more on-topic, I often hear here that Lincoln wanted to send the blacks elsewhere, feeling that free blacks and whites could not live together in peace. Would he be able to get a "black deportation" bill passed by the Radical Republicans, or would the RRs consider liberated blacks a natural constituency for them, and simply block his moves? As has been said, Lincoln is unlikely to be impeached.
Yes, Southern Secessionism dissapeared after the Civil War. As did New England secessionism. And any other secessionism. The Civil War had established that states could not secede. It did by bloody war, but it did it nonetheless. Because of the massive defeat secessionists gained, they were pushed as far to the margins as a modern Anti-Semite party would be.
The confederecy was slave-owning, and it seceded because it feared its rights would be taken away by the more populous North. Yes, slavery was one of those rights, but that does not make all Confederate supporters racists, no more than those who give the pre-Civil War United States much support are racists. Slavery was evil, yes. But there was more to the Confederacy than slavery.
And more on-topic, I often hear here that Lincoln wanted to send the blacks elsewhere, feeling that free blacks and whites could not live together in peace. Would he be able to get a "black deportation" bill passed by the Radical Republicans, or would the RRs consider liberated blacks a natural constituency for them, and simply block his moves? As has been said, Lincoln is unlikely to be impeached.
Brilliantlight said:
But it was not, as of yet, formed into States. Your comment that the South wanted to "expand slavery into the North" implies that they wanted to extend it into the existing Northern States. This was not true, although some Northern politicians claimed that it was at the time...Lincoln among them.
Actually, I would submit that your syllogism is flawed. Also the native Americans at a certain point in time stopped rebelling. Does this mean that the roots of native American nationalism were also shallow? or maybe that the Federal troops were even too much effective in suppressing rebellion?Macsporan said:
"They made a desert, and called it peace"
Macsporan said:
The difference between the Confederates and the Irish/Poles/Vietnamese/etc. is that the United States wisely returned self-government WITHIN the Union within a relatively short time after the war. If Reconstruction had continued in the same way for a longer period of time, who knows what might have happened? The South also had, during the postwar period, some very influential leaders...Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, even Nathan Bedford Forrest...urging Southerners to return their loyalty to the Union and not to rebel against it. Indeed, on the night before the final surrender at Appomattox, some of Lee's officers came to him with a proposal that the Army of Northern Virginia disband, slip away into the woods, and begin a guerilla struggle. If Lee had accepted this suggestion, the Civil War would have ended up very much like the Vietnam War, on a much larger scale, and the country...both North and South...would have been much worse off for it.
Macsporan said:
It's so much easier to attack the person making the argument than it is to attack the argument itself, isn't it, Mac?
Macsporan said:
The herd of rhinos is also still in the living room along with that elephant. Careful you don't focus on that elephant so much that you get trampled by the rhinos. Calling the rhinos names won't stop them from trampling you.
Macsporan said:
Your understanding, as in so many things, is mistaken.
Brilliantlight
Banned
robertp6165 said:
Make all the territories slave states over time and it would.
Strategos' Risk said:
That seems true. The Northerners could condemn the South for their egregious racism while treating the blacks who lived in their own areas with only slightly less nastiness.
Racism is bad.
Last edited:
Bill Cameron said:
If we were in the UK, you could probably have him arrested, tried, and jailed under those ridiculous "hate speech" laws. Fortunately, this is in the US where we still believe that freedom of speech, which many of your people fought and died to defend, applies to the unpopular as well as the popular.
Remember Voltaire--"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
If Robert's freedom of speech is threatened, so is yours.
And on the matter of David Irving, was the outcome of that case ever in doubt? When the judge calls him a racist and an anti-Semite from the bench, you know that the procedure is biased against him. Not that I am defending Holocaust denial, but even scum deserve fair treatment.
Last edited:
good lord, I get a real sense of deja vue reading this thread... Macsporan screaming "Slavery! Slavery!", others screaming "Tarriffs! Tarriffs!" or "States Rights!"... and those of us who are logically saying that the ACW had more than one cause get ignored....
robertp6165 said:James, yours is one of the most intelligent posts on this subject I have read on this board. My hat is off to you.
Thanks
As I said I am really not into name calling and all that, and The incessant use of the word Racist is about as effective as a five year old's use of the name DoDo head for everyone who doesn't let him have his way.
Anyway....
Linclon was riding a wave of popularity at the wars end and being backslapped and congratulated by everyone who had previously called him Honest Ape.
There is a good chance he might have been able to use this popularity to push through some of his reconstruction programs but he was not generaly Popular in all sections of the Country.
The 1865 Southern Reorganization Act allows Former States to reenter the Union after a waiting period of two years if the State has drawn up a Constitution that outlaws slavery and garuntees Voting Rights to all Citizens.
Allows for Each Unadmitted Confederate State to have one nonvoting Senator and Two Nonvoting Represenitives until Readdmission.
The Land and Home act of 1866- restores seized federal lands to owners who can show proof of prewar tax payment and all back taxes 1861 -1865.
Confederate Officers above the rank of Major are only allowed to reclaim 1/10 of previous holdings or 50 Ac which ever is greater.
Excess Land is acutioned to pay war debts of States.
Northern Business Men at Wars end saw the South as a gold mine waiting to be plundered , There is a good chance that as Linclon was drawn into His second term he and these Business intrest would have clashed just as they did during the Johnson Administration but there would have been no Impeachment as Linclon was to much a politician to allow something like the tenure of Office act to become law... he would have kept Control of his Cabinet and Stanton would have been out had he wanted to Fire Him.
Johnson however may have been called up on Impeachment charges due to his drinking,and resigned the Vice Presidency under pressure (This may have been done as a sacrifice to the radicals, in order to pass needed legislation, they Place Thad Stevens or Ben Wade in the VP Spot)
I am of the opinion that an outstanding Event of Linclons second term would have been a Tour of The South to see reconstruction in Action.
he did after all visit Richmond even before the war had ended and showed great personal Courage in doing so.
Seeing the devastation First hand would have moved the President Greatly and a personal showing in the Occupied South would show a nonpartisian spirit needed to as he said "Bind up the wounds".
The spirit of this Trip would spur much of the legislation during the term's second half Including
a strong voting rights act enforced by a cabinet level Secratary of The Freedmens Department.
Federal Supression of klan activity by the Unlawful Organizations act (Similar to todays RICO act),
the Federal Freedmans land grant act of 1867 (Free Western land to any freed slave upon agreement to settle and improve it.)
As Election Time Draws near Linclon would announce that he would not seek a third term as is traditional.
The Popular Republican Choice is of Course General Grant Who has been serving as General of the Army
At the Chicago Convention Grant Carries the delegates with Linclon's Endorsment.
Linclon will Retire to Springfield where he will serve as an elder statesman of the Republican party and accept an occasional case in The Local Courts.
Greatly Saddened by the death of His Young son and eventual Confinement of his wife to a mental ward The Former President's health will begin to fail in the Mid 1870's .
he will Give a speech supporting Rutherford Hayes removal of Federal troops from the South and blasting those who would build America into a Gilded Fortress on the backs of the poor and helpless.
His Last known Speech is a Nomination Speech for James Garfield who several months after election becomes the first president to be assassinated .
Linclon Dies at His Springfield Home in 1883 with his wife and Son Robert at his bedside.. His Last Words "The Union is at last secure"
Michael E Johnson
Banned
robertp6165 said:
"As to why more blacks weren't registered as prisoners, that's an easy one to answer. They simply had an easy way out...just say "Massa forced me to go in the army with him, I ain't no soldier, I's just a cook." And get a free pass out of the POW Camp. "
This quote from the Confederate flag thread.The whole post was bullshit but this part was especially offensive.
- Status