New Website on the American Civil War

[ding]

I do not believe Lincoln was a tyrant. I agree that some of his actions against anti-war Northerners were unconstitutional and sometimes heavy handed, but I think his lenient and reasonable terms for Reconstruction prove he was no tyrant. Dr. David Donald, one of the foremost Lincoln historians of all time, makes a strong case that Lincoln would not have used force against the Confederacy if the Confederates had not bombarded and captured Fort Sumter.

You will never convince them because it's not about that for them. That's just a convenient argument they make because they are too much of cowards to state their real reason for hating Lincoln.

 

[gipper]

Which is why he’s on Mount Rushmore with the other tyrants.

Lol. Well that’s proof enough his was a great man…but only to mental midgets totally mind controlled by the establishment.

LMFAO.

 

[Quantrill]

He cared less for the slaves than he did for saving the Union. Which is why the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation allowed for states to keep slaves if they put down their arms.

The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation offered Confederate states a chance to keep their slaves if they laid down their arms and rejoined the Union by January 1, 1863, but they rejected the offer, leading to the final proclamation declaring slaves in rebellious states free. The proclamation, based on war powers, excluded loyal border states and Union-occupied areas, making its immediate effect dependent on Union military success, transforming the war's aim to include ending slavery.
Key Details of the Proclamation:

• The Offer: In September 1862, after the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation giving Confederate states 100 days to return to the Union to avoid emancipation.
• The Condition: If states in rebellion (those not under Union control) did not comply by January 1, 1863, all enslaved people in those areas "shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free".
• Exclusions: It did not apply to slaveholding border states (like Kentucky, Maryland) that remained loyal to the Union, nor to parts of the Confederacy already under Union control, to avoid alienating them.
• Outcome: The Confederate states ignored the offer, so Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, making freedom for enslaved people in rebellious territories a reality as Union forces advanced.
• Impact: The Proclamation fundamentally changed the war, adding the moral cause of ending slavery and allowing Black men to serve in the Union Army, significantly aiding the Union war effort.

What is the source of your information?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

You will never convince them because it's not about that for them. That's just a convenient argument they make because they are too much of cowards to state their real reason for hating Lincoln.

Liar. I stated clearly my real reasons for hating Lincoln in post #(36). If you don't believe them, please disprove them. Now we will see who the coward is.

Quantrill

 

[ding]

What is the source of your information?

Quantrill

The national archives of the United States of America.

 

[ding]

Liar. I stated clearly my real reasons for hating Lincoln in post #(36). If you don't believe them, please disprove them. Now we will see who the coward is.

Quantrill

I have disproved it. You are a racist and you are too much of a coward to own it except in secret with other cowards.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I like Civil War stuff. I'm in!
TNHarley will check it out too.

Me too. I’ve been going around the historical sites. I was in Richmond last weekend.

 

[JoeB131]

So being a patriot and killing a tyrant only counts if the accused is in the process of said tyranny? Seriously?

What Tyranny? He was elected, twice.

Wilkes was a racist asshole who hated the idea of slavery ending. This wasn't about "Tyranny" at all.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, Lincoln did what tyrants do. Shut down free speech. Suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus so he could arrest anyone he wanted to at any time he wanted to. And leave the people void of any hope of release. He arrested the whole legislative body of Maryland knowing they would vote for secession. When Supreme Court Justice Taney warned Lincoln he crossed the line, Lincoln put out a warrant for his arrest. Oh yes, Lincoln was a dictator.

No, he was handling a difficult situation. Lincoln did not suspect Habeus for the duration of the war, unlike Jefferson Davis who did.

If anything, Lincoln was pretty lenient. Most places would have taken rebels out and shot them. And while the South committed war crimes at Andersonville, captured Confederate Traitors were treated with humanity.

Lincoln planned on war with the South all along. He simply had to set up the situation where the South was the evil people and have them fire on the North. Which he did when he sent his ships to attack Sumter. Which was found out in a letter he had sent to Anderson at Sumter. Which showed that he and Seward were lying the whole time about abandoning Sumter.

Um, the South were evil people. They owned slaves. Slave owners are evil.

And if you want to go farther back, the first shot of the War Between The States, was John Browns attack at Harpers Ferry. There John Brown wanted to create a slave insurrection to rise up and kill the Southern slaveholders. Which high up business men in the North supported, and later were rewarded in the North for their actions.

Oh, noes, they were going to kill slaveholders? What a tragedy.

 

[Quantrill]

The national archives of the United States of America.

Go to National Archives of the United States web site. Click on 'Research Our Records'. Click on Research by Topic. Type in search window 'History Of The Civil War'.

You will have some 500 pages. So, show me where you got your information in those 500 pages.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

No, he was handling a difficult situation. Lincoln did not suspect Habeus for the duration of the war, unlike Jefferson Davis who did.

If anything, Lincoln was pretty lenient. Most places would have taken rebels out and shot them. And while the South committed war crimes at Andersonville, captured Confederate Traitors were treated with humanity.




Um, the South were evil people. They owned slaves. Slave owners are evil.



Oh, noes, they were going to kill slaveholders? What a tragedy.

Lincoln was handling a situation he started. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in 1861. Congress in 1863 rubber stamped it because that is what Congress was by that time, Lincoln's rubber stamp. After the War, 1866, President Johnson restored the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the case of Ex Parte Milligan and the Supreme Court took the case. "The Supreme Court released Milligan and then condemned the past five years of arbitrary, even phoney, military tribunals." (When In The Course Of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 53)

"Hence, the military commissions of the Civil War era were held to be illegal. The military courts of President Lincoln were illegal. The opinion was delivered by Justice Davis..." (Adams, p. 53)

"Not only did it make Lincoln's military tribunals illegal, it even made illegal all those military arrests and trials by Lincoln after he received congressional approval--after Congress suspended the privilege of habeas Corpus. In short, the Milligan case held that not even Congress can suspend the writ in those areas where civilian courts are open." (Adams, p. 53)

As for Jeff Davis suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, he had the authority to based upon the Constitution of the Confederate States. Section 9 (3). And the South was under attack by the North. This was not done till February of 1862. And he did so with Congress approval.

Lincoln would arrest people just for disagreeing with him and his position. "As time passed, the suspension of the writ put over ten thousand men into prison. Men who had done nothing other than express their opinions about the despotic course of events--words opposing Lincoln's rule. They were not secessionist sympathizers, but Lincoln opponents--against the wholesale destruction of the Constitution." (Adams, p. 52)

What made the slave owners evil? And not everyone in the South owned slaves.

What war crimes were committed at Andersonville? And, your claim of Confederate prisoners treated 'humanely' is pure bullshit. Shows your ignorance of the truth. Where did you get that idea?

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

What made the slave owners evil? And not everyone in the South owned slaves.

Um, the fact that they owned slaves.

Yes, a lot of stupid inbred white people fought to keep black people enslaved because they didn't want them ******* their sisters. That was THEIR job.

What war crimes were committed at Andersonville? And, your claim of Confederate prisoners treated 'humanely' is pure bullshit. Shows your ignorance of the truth. Where did you get that idea?

Educate yourself.

Andersonville Prison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The site was commanded by Captain Henry Wirz, who was tried and executed after the war for war crimes. The prison was overcrowded to four times its capacity, and had an inadequate water supply, inadequate food, and unsanitary conditions. Of the approximately 45,000 Union prisoners held at Camp Sumter during the war, nearly 13,000 (28%) died. The chief causes of death were scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.

 

[ding]

Go to National Archives of the United States web site. Click on 'Research Our Records'. Click on Research by Topic. Type in search window 'History Of The Civil War'.

You will have some 500 pages. So, show me where you got your information in those 500 pages.

Quantrill

Try googling emancipation proclamation and select the link to the national archives. It will take you right there.

Or maybe just read the emancipation proclamation. Or google, "did Lincoln allow states to keep their slaves if they put down their arms?"

It's hilarious that you didn't know Lincoln allowed states to keep their slaves if they put down their arms. How can you be so ignorant about something you have such strong feelings about?

 

[mikegriffith1]

I do not believe Lincoln was a tyrant. I agree that some of his actions against anti-war Northerners were unconstitutional and sometimes heavy handed, but I think his lenient and reasonable terms for Reconstruction prove he was no tyrant. Dr. David Donald, one of the foremost Lincoln historians of all time, makes a strong case that Lincoln would not have used force against the Confederacy if the Confederates had not bombarded and captured Fort Sumter.

I should add that Lincoln's handling of the slavery issue also shows he was no tyrant. He tried hard to persuade Northern slaveholders to accept his compensated emancipation plan. When they foolishly rejected it, he did not seek to coerce them. With the Emancipation Proclamation, he freed only those slaves in Confederate states, which were in rebellion against the government. He did not apply the proclamation to Northern states because, as he explained, he had no constitutional authority to free Northern slaves.

If Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens or Benjamin Wade had been president, they would have showed no such restraint.

Lincoln did not support "total war" against the South. He did his best to restrain the worst Union generals, but there was only so much he could do under the circumstances, given Northern public opinion, the power of the Radicals, and the influence of his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. Again, if Stevens or Wade would have been in charge, the Union war effort would have been far more brutal.

It is humorous to see liberals such as "rightwinger" label my Civil War site "revisionist." He is obviously unaware of the fact that my view of Radical Reconstruction was the standard view among historians for decades. Similarly, my view of the Radical Republicans' role in causing secession and the war was solidly mainstream among historians for decades. But, starting in the 1970s, liberal historians began to dominate the academic world and began churning out "revisionist" history books whose views are now the dominant view.

It is also humorous to see JoeB131, a slimy anti-Semite and Mao-Stalin apologist who gets most of his "history" from Wikipedia, attacking my position on General George McClellan. I'd bet good money he has not ready any of my articles on McClellan, much less any of the many good books by mainstream historians that have challenged the Radical Republican portrayal of McClellan as a timid, dawdling commander.

Quantrill, you're wasting hour time arguing with JoeB131 about Andersonville. As you can see, his go-to source for history is Wikipedia. I'm certain he's unaware that even a neo-Radical historian such as James McPherson has acknowledged that the Confederates did not try to mistreat Union prisoners at Andersonville and that the Confederates did the best they could to feed and care for them there.

 

[TNHarley]

What Tyranny? He was elected, twice.

Wilkes was a racist asshole who hated the idea of slavery ending. This wasn't about "Tyranny" at all.

What tyranny? LMAO
He raped the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. He suspended habeas corpus. He ignored supreme court rulings (dont forget you are supposed to be against that)
He restricted speech, he jailed journalists, arrested people with no warrant, no due process, shut down newspapers, used military tribunals to try civilians, etc. Oh, and lets not forget how after the war, he sent his henchman sherman to burn down widows and their childrens farms.

 

[TNHarley]

I should add that Lincoln's handling of the slavery issue also shows he was no tyrant. He tried hard to persuade Northern slaveholders to accept his compensated emancipation plan. When they foolishly rejected it, he did not seek to coerce them. With the Emancipation Proclamation, he freed only those slaves in Confederate states, which were in rebellion against the government. He did not apply the proclamation to Northern states because, as he explained, he had no constitutional authority to free Northern slaves.

If Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens or Benjamin Wade had been president, they would have showed no such restraint.

Lincoln did not support "total war" against the South. He did his best to restrain the worst Union generals, but there was only so much he could do under the circumstances, given Northern public opinion, the power of the Radicals, and the influence of his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. Again, if Stevens or Wade would have been in charge, the Union war effort would have been far more brutal.

It is humorous to see liberals such as "rightwinger" label my Civil War site "revisionist." He is obviously unaware of the fact that my view of Radical Reconstruction was the standard view among historians for decades. Similarly, my view of the Radical Republicans' role in causing secession and the war was solidly mainstream among historians for decades. But, starting in the 1970s, liberal historians began to dominate the academic world and began churning out "revisionist" history books whose views are now the dominant view.

It is also humorous to see JoeB131, a slimy anti-Semite and Mao-Stalin apologist who gets most of his "history" from Wikipedia, attacking my position on General George McClellan. I'd bet good money he has not ready any of my articles on McClellan, much less any of the many good books by mainstream historians that have challenged the Radical Republican portrayal of McClellan as a timid, dawdling commander.

I also see JoeB131 repeating long-debunked lies about Andersonville Prison. Quantrill, you're wasting hour time arguing with that wingnut. As you can see, his go-to source for history is Wikipedia. I'm certain he's unaware that even a neo-Radical historian such as James McPherson has acknowledged that the Confederates did not try to mistreat Union prisoners at Andersonville and that the Confederates did the best they could to feed and care for them there.

Good lord almighty.

 

[JoeB131]

I should add that Lincoln's handling of the slavery issue also shows he was no tyrant. He tried hard to persuade Northern slaveholders to accept his compensated emancipation plan. When they foolishly rejected it, he did not seek to coerce them. With the Emancipation Proclamation, he freed only those slaves in Confederate states, which were in rebellion against the government. He did not apply the proclamation to Northern states because, as he explained, he had no constitutional authority to free Northern slaves.

Not sure if this means all that much, as he also championed the passing of the 13th Amendment, which was passed by Congress and ratified by 21 States before his assassination. This ended slavery in ALL the states.

If Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens or Benjamin Wade had been president, they would have showed no such restraint.

Lincoln did not support "total war" against the South. He did his best to restrain the worst Union generals, but there was only so much he could do under the circumstances, given Northern public opinion, the power of the Radicals, and the influence of his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. Again, if Stevens or Wade would have been in charge, the Union war effort would have been far more brutal.

You say that like it was a bad thing. The biggest problem was that the North didn't use its overwhelming strength to crush the South and then hang Davis, Lee, and every other traitor from the nearest tree.

The Civil War was a case where we won the war and lost the peace. Hundreds of thousands of men died, and the South went right back to being racist shitheads.

It is humorous to see liberals such as "rightwinger" label my Civil War site "revisionist." He is obviously unaware of the fact that my view of Radical Reconstruction was the standard view among historians for decades. Similarly, my view of the Radical Republicans' role in causing secession and the war was solidly mainstream among historians for decades. But, starting in the 1970s, liberal historians began to dominate the academic world and began churning out "revisionist" history books whose views are now the dominant view.

The problem with the "traditional" view is that it suffered from the "Lost Cause" mythology. For decades after the war, we were more concerned with the South's "Feelings" about the war than actually imposing our war goals. So the South instituted Jim Crow and put up statues to the traitors and slave owners. Not to mention the various outbreaks of Klan activity.

"Revisionists" were people who realized, hey, maybe black people had feelings about the war, and its aftermath.

It is also humorous to see JoeB131, a slimy anti-Semite and Mao-Stalin apologist who gets most of his "history" from Wikipedia, attacking my position on General George McClellan. I'd bet good money he has not ready any of my articles on McClellan, much less any of the many good books by mainstream historians that have challenged the Radical Republican portrayal of McClellan as a timid, dawdling commander.

Naw, dude, there's only so much of your batshit crazy I can read in one sitting.

The fact is, after years of indecisively fighting in VA, Lincoln finally had the good sense to sack McClellan and replace him with Grant, because Grant was a fighter!!!

Then McClellan threw a hissy, ran for President in 1864 on a Surrender Monkey platform, and got thoroughly trounced. (I think he carried three states.)

 

[JoeB131]

What tyranny? LMAO
He raped the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. He suspended habeas corpus. He ignored supreme court rulings (dont forget you are supposed to be against that)
He restricted speech, he jailed journalists, arrested people with no warrant, no due process, shut down newspapers, used military tribunals to try civilians, etc. Oh, and lets not forget how after the war, he sent his henchman sherman to burn down widows and their childrens farms.

You mean when the South was still resisting after they had been defeated?

If anything, Lincoln and his successors were too lenient with the South. We won the war and lost the peace, and we are still paying for that today.

 

[TNHarley]

You mean when the South was still resisting after they had been defeated?

If anything, Lincoln and his successors were too lenient with the South. We won the war and lost the peace, and we are still paying for that today.

I love watching you morons defend this tyranny then whine about trump, and he isnt a quarter as bad as lincoln.

 

[JoeB131]

I love watching you morons defend this tyranny then whine about trump, and he isnt a quarter as bad as lincoln.

Well, if half the country seceded, Trump would probably be considerably worse than he is now.

The South Started the war, so a few rich assholes could keep owning other people. This makes Lincoln a hero.

Think about that. The South wanted to destroy the country not because Lincoln even threatened to abolish slavery, just restrict its expansion. They did a horrible thing for all the wrong reasons, and get upset that maybe today, we don't want to keep honoring their memories for doing it.