The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[Quantrill]

Naw, the problem was, the NOrth wanted reconcilation more than it wanted justice. We've been paying for it ever since.

You know why no one today yells, "Heil Hitler!" Because we hanged all the top Nazis and made sure everyone knew what they did was bad.


Yawn, there weren't any.


Point was, the sissy put on a lady's shawl and tried to hide.

He should have run out with a pistol in each hand yelling, "Die, Yankee dogs!!!" But he didn't have the balls for that after ordering hundreds of thousands to needless deaths.


Yes, because no one wants to shelter presidential assassins.

But failed presidents?

Uh-huh. And he fled to Canada in 1867 and hid there until the coast was clear.

Well, show me where the North wanted reconciliation more than vengeance. Otherwise you just give more shit statments.

Bullshit. See the Black Codes prior to the war for Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. Damn, what a bunch of racist Jim Crow sons of bitches the North was.

No, the point is that your history is developed through meme's. Cartoons. Bullshit. Sesame Street. I bet you still watch Sesame Street don't ya? Nice pictures for the kiddies. Your mom doesn't let you watch real history. Your mind is incapeable.

Sorry but I have already proved that it was the North that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Not Jeff Davis. And the Yankee Court didn't have the balls to try Jeff Davis because they knew it would prove they were the traitor. They were the ones guilty of treason. And they didn't have the balls to admit it. Just like you don't have the balls to admit it. You're a coward just like your fathers. You're a traitor, just like your fathers. You can't change the Leopards Spots.

Again, dumbass, my point was concerning John Surratt was that the U.S. government was not going to allow Jeff Davis to run to Canada and get away, which is what you were implying. Try and keep up...I know it's difficult. No Dick and Jane books for you here.

What a dumbass. My point was that the prosecution lawyers were serious, which you said they were not. For three years they worked and struggled with the case. They finally told the president, take your military victory and be happy. We cannot win the legal victory. And that is so true as you firmly display with your uneducated and empty statements. You can't prove shit. All you do is spew shit.

You're are stupid. And I love displaying it.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

Well, show me where the North wanted reconciliation more than vengeance. Otherwise you just give more shit statments.

they didn't hang the Confederates. That's how you know that he wanted reconciliation more than vengeance.

Even Abe Lincoln was talking more about reconciliation when the war was barely over.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address - Lincoln Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Sorry but I have already proved that it was the North that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Not Jeff Davis. And the Yankee Court didn't have the balls to try Jeff Davis because they knew it would prove they were the traitor. They were the ones guilty of treason. And they didn't have the balls to admit it. Just like you don't have the balls to admit it. You're a coward just like your fathers. You're a traitor, just like your fathers. You can't change the Leopards Spots.

Nope. The South Started the War. They attacked Fort Sumter. They declared secession. They were guilty of treason, and should have been hanged, but Lincoln and Johnson didn't want that.

Also, my Dad was born in Germany and my mom was from Missouri. Now Missouri had some awful tales about the Civil War. They chose to stay in the Unions, but Pro-Confederate assholes spread terror near and far, anyway.

Again, dumbass, my point was concerning John Surratt was that the U.S. government was not going to allow Jeff Davis to run to Canada and get away, which is what you were implying.

You didn't have a point. Suratt was a murderer. (He got a pass at his trial because people felt bad they hanged his mom). Getting Egypt to turn over an assassin was going to be a lot harder than getting the British Empire to hand over Davis. That's why the little chickenshit ran to Canada.

 

[Quantrill]

they didn't hang the Confederates. That's how you know that he wanted reconciliation more than vengeance.

Even Abe Lincoln was talking more about reconciliation when the war was barely over.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address - Lincoln Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."



Nope. The South Started the War. They attacked Fort Sumter. They declared secession. They were guilty of treason, and should have been hanged, but Lincoln and Johnson didn't want that.

Also, my Dad was born in Germany and my mom was from Missouri. Now Missouri had some awful tales about the Civil War. They chose to stay in the Unions, but Pro-Confederate assholes spread terror near and far, anyway.



You didn't have a point. Suratt was a murderer. (He got a pass at his trial because people felt bad they hanged his mom). Getting Egypt to turn over an assassin was going to be a lot harder than getting the British Empire to hand over Davis. That's why the little chickenshit ran to Canada.

More shit statements from the 'fertilized brain'. I asked you to show me. Your use of Abraham Lincoln proves nothing. Lincoln was a weathercock. He faced the way the political winds were blowing. Lincoln lied his ass off to get his way. I have showed that Lincoln and Seward both lied together in order to start the war. And he would continue his lies throughout the war.

Lincoln's second inauguration speech was just a lie like all his others.

For example: Lincoln would not honor the South's secession. Because, according to him, the Union was perpetual. Which was Lincoln bullshit. Once the war began, Lincoln placed a blockade on the Southern ports. His attorney General, Edward bates warned him not to. Why? Because a blockade is a declaration of war. And a nation cannot blockade itself. But Lincoln with Sewards help, instituted a blockade anyway.

What did that do? It acknowledged the South's secession. It acknowledged that they were a belligerent in accordance to the international laws of war. In other words, in setting the blockade, Lincoln moved away from 'domestic law of war' to 'international law of war'. He acknowledged by his act, the secession of the Southern States.

Lincoln and Seward thought they could juggle legality with what they really wanted to do. Why, because they didn't give a shit about the legality of it. What they wanted was their goal. But now, as legal matters do, it bit them in the ass.

In June of 1861, for you, that is just a few months after the war started, a ship called the Savannah flying the Confederate flag was running the blockade. But it was captured by U.S. war ships. It's crew was imprisoned. The crew presented letters that it was following the orders of the Confederate government.

Now, follow if you can, as I know it is difficult for you, the U.S. government wanted to try these men as pirates, not as enemy belligerents. Why? Because to try them as belligerents would be to acknowledge the secession of the Southern States. Problem is, they already acknowledged that when they blocked the Southern Ports under international law. You see, Lincoln was a weathercock. He used whatever he could to make it happen his way. But now he shit his pants. He wanted it both ways, but couldn't get it.

The case of the crew of the Savannah was argued in New York in a Federal court. Prosecuting attorney was William Evarts. The same Evarts who would prosecute Jeff Davis at a future date. The jury refused to convict these crewman of the Savannah. And the Prosecution refused to try it again. Why? Cause Lincoln was full of shit.

Instead the men were treated as prisoners of war and eventually exchanged with Northern prisoners. An act, by the way, which is under international law, which also proves the Southern States had indeed seceded.

This information can be found in the book, (Secession On Trial, Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 208-211_

Point being: Lincoln's claim in his 2nd inaugural address, or any other speech he made, wasn't/isn't worth the paper it was writ on.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

For example: Lincoln would not honor the South's secession. Because, according to him, the Union was perpetual. Which was Lincoln bullshit. Once the war began, Lincoln placed a blockade on the Southern ports. His attorney General, Edward bates warned him not to. Why? Because a blockade is a declaration of war. And a nation cannot blockade itself. But Lincoln with Sewards help, instituted a blockade anyway.

Um, yeah, that's how you deal with traitors. You hit them where it hurts.

And you know what, the whole world backed Lincoln's play. The Brits and French could have broken Lincoln's blockade, but they didn't.

Because he was in the right.

And our greatest president.

In June of 1861, for you, that is just a few months after the war started, a ship called the Savannah flying the Confederate flag was running the blockade. But it was captured by U.S. war ships. It's crew was imprisoned. The crew presented letters that it was following the orders of the Confederate government.

Now, follow if you can, as I know it is difficult for you, the U.S. government wanted to try these men as pirates, not as enemy belligerents. Why? Because to try them as belligerents would be to acknowledge the secession of the Southern States. Problem is, they already acknowledged that when they blocked the Southern Ports under international law. You see, Lincoln was a weathercock. He used whatever he could to make it happen his way. But now he shit his pants. He wanted it both ways, but couldn't get it.

Of course they did. Because they weren't representing a legitimate government.

Riddle Me this. How many other countries recognized the Confederacy?

 

[Quantrill]

Um, yeah, that's how you deal with traitors. You hit them where it hurts.

And you know what, the whole world backed Lincoln's play. The Brits and French could have broken Lincoln's blockade, but they didn't.

Because he was in the right.

And our greatest president.



Of course they did. Because they weren't representing a legitimate government.

Riddle Me this. How many other countries recognized the Confederacy?

Lincoln declared the Confederacy a legitimate government when he blockaded the South's ports under international law. Making secession legal. The Federal courts agreed in treating the Savannah crewman as prisoners of war and not guilty of treason under international law, as they would not convict them for treason. Further proof was that they were exchanged later under rules of international law.

All of which would have to be considered when it came time to try Jeff Davis or any Confederates for treason by Law and in real courts. Lincoln and Seward and Chase had the power to do as they liked while the war was going on. But when it came to justify what was done by Law, it was another story. Lincoln and Seward and Chase's use of using domestic and international rules of war against the South was simply illegal. The South could not be charged for treason.

All of this the prosecuting lawyers knew would come out in the Davis trial for treason and secession. Which is why they advised the President, Johnson, that it is best not to go forward with this trial. For, when Davis is found 'not guilty', that is a declaration that the Union was guilty.

See again (Secession On Trial, Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 208-211)

But, point being: Letting Davis go was equally a declaration of Davis and the South not being the traitor. Which made the North the real traitor and guilty of treason.

Also, how about them Jim Crow black codes in the North before the war.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

Lincoln declared the Confederacy a legitimate government when he blockaded the South's ports under international law. Making secession legal. The Federal courts agreed in treating the Savannah crewman as prisoners of war and not guilty of treason under international law, as they would not convict them for treason. Further proof was that they were exchanged later under rules of international law.

They weren't accused of treason, they were accused of piracy, which was probably a legal stretch.

Nope, ordering a blockade against illegally seceding states is not a recognition of their government.

No one recognized the Confederacy as legitimate and the world supported Lincoln's actions, because slavery so noxious to civilized people.

All of which would have to be considered when it came time to try Jeff Davis or any Confederates for treason by Law and in real courts. Lincoln and Seward and Chase had the power to do as they liked while the war was going on. But when it came to justify what was done by Law, it was another story. Lincoln and Seward and Chase's use of using domestic and international rules of war against the South was simply illegal. The South could not be charged for treason.

Or they were just looking for reconciliation the minute the guns stopped firing, which, if you read Lincoln's second inaugural address, he was most certainly aiming for. And then after the secessionists murdered him, Feckless Andy doubled down on giving up everything brave men had won.

Huge mistake and we paid for it with a century of Jim Crow and racial animosity to this very day. At least today, we are tearing down their statues and renaming all the public places.

 

[mikegriffith1]

They didn't hang more because the Law was back in force. That way assholes like you couldn't get their way. Your opinion is just a shit statement.

And, what is your source for Davis in a womans dress?

Davis came back any time he was required to be in court. Whether he would have come back or not depending on the way the case was unfolding, no one knows. Just because he was in Canada wouldn't mean the U.S. wouldn't try and get him back. John Surratt was captured in Egypt and brought back to trial as conspirator in the Lincoln assassination.

It was the prosecutions lawyers and Chief Justice Chase who were wrestling with the legal facts of Davis case. Many issues were in play that made Davis acquittal a real possibility. It was the lawyers who recommended to Johnson that he issue a proclamation of amnesty for all Confederates under indictment. Evarts and Dana were the prosecution.

"Evarts waited more than a month before forwarding it to the president. He told Dana that he wanted to familiarize himself with the details of the present indictment pending against Davis before sending the letter to Johnson. When Evarts finally introduced Dana's letter in the cabinet in October, he informed the other officers that he shared Dana's misgivings. He was equally convinced, he said, that Davis's trial could easily result in acquittal and consequent humiliation for the government. (Secession On Trial, Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, p. 292)

"Along with Dana's letter, Evarts also presented a recommendation that the president issue a proclamation of amnesty that would cover all of the Confederates still under indictment, including Davis." (Nicoletti, p. 292)

Glory, glory....hallelujah!

Quantrill

Yes, it is certainly true that federal prosecutors and officials were hesitant to put Davis on trial because they knew that they would have to prove secession was unconstitutional and that this would be difficult. A trial would have also required a thorough review of the events surrounding Fort Sumter, which would have exposed some dirty laundry that the federals preferred to keep secret, such as the fact that several high-ranking federal officials led Southern officials to believe that Sumter would soon be evacuated.

Of course, by this time Andrew Johnson had wised up and had realized that Stanton's so-called "evidence" that Booth acted on orders from Davis was bogus and fabricated. Right after Lincoln's death, Stanton rushed to Johnson with this phony evidence and initially convinced Johnson that Davis and other high Confederate officials were behind the assassination. Johnson, to his credit, soon realized that Stanton had deceived him, and he soon began to suspect that Stanton and other Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

 

[Quantrill]

Yes, it is certainly true that federal prosecutors and officials were hesitant to put Davis on trial because they knew that they would have to prove secession was unconstitutional and that this would be difficult. A trial would have also required a thorough review of the events surrounding Fort Sumter, which would have exposed some dirty laundry that the federals preferred to keep secret, such as the fact that several high-ranking federal officials led Southern officials to believe that Sumter would soon be evacuated.

Of course, by this time Andrew Johnson had wised up and had realized that Stanton's so-called "evidence" that Booth acted on orders from Davis was bogus and fabricated. Right after Lincoln's death, Stanton rushed to Johnson with this phony evidence and initially convinced Johnson that Davis and other high Confederate officials were behind the assassination. Johnson, to his credit, soon realized that Stanton had deceived him, and he soon began to suspect that Stanton and other Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

The more I study that time period, the more I am 'tempted' to believe that the Radicals and Stanton were behind Lincoln's death. They truly had a hatred for any who opposed what they wanted to do with the Constitution and Reconstruction. In other words, they had a motive.

Till I learn more, if there is any more to be learned about it, I will just view it as a possibility.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

The more I study that time period, the more I am 'tempted' to believe that the Radicals and Stanton were behind Lincoln's death. They truly had a hatred for any who opposed what they wanted to do with the Constitution and Reconstruction. In other words, they had a motive.

Till I learn more, if there is any more to be learned about it, I will just view it as a possibility.

Quantrill

I suggest you read my article "Unwanted Evidence: Evidence That Lincoln Was Killed by a Radical Republican Plot" and then read Dr. Leonard Guttridge and Dr. Ray Neff's book Dark Union: The Secret Web of
Profiteers, Politicians, and Booth Conspirators That Led to Lincoln's Death.

I also recommend Otto Eisenschiml's Why Was Lincoln Murdered? Eisenschiml did not have the benefit of the Lafayette Baker cipher notes, but he made a credible circumstantial case that the Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

 

[Quantrill]

I suggest you read my article "Unwanted Evidence: Evidence That Lincoln Was Killed by a Radical Republican Plot" and then read Dr. Leonard Guttridge and Dr. Ray Neff's book Dark Union: The Secret Web of
Profiteers, Politicians, and Booth Conspirators That Led to Lincoln's Death.

I also recommend Otto Eisenschiml's Why Was Lincoln Murdered? Eisenschiml did not have the benefit of the Lafayette Baker cipher notes, but he made a credible circumstantial case that the Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

Thanks, I will try and obtain the books you recommend, as well as another I saw on the same subject. Should be interesting reading.

At present I am involved with 'the impeachment and attempted removal of Andrew Johnson from the Presidency'. For all these subjects are connected, and the failure of the Radicals to remove Johnson had some major consequences. One of which was the charges being dropped against Jeff Davis. Had Johnson been removed, Davis would surely have hung as well as many other Confederates.

Because the man who would have replaced Johnson was Benjamin Wade, a Radical who made it plain that Davis should hang along with other leaders of the Confederacy. And he didn't give a damn about the Constitution or rule of Law. Pretty much like most Radicals.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Thanks, I will try and obtain the books you recommend, as well as another I saw on the same subject. Should be interesting reading.

At present I am involved with 'the impeachment and attempted removal of Andrew Johnson from the Presidency'. For all these subjects are connected, and the failure of the Radicals to remove Johnson had some major consequences. One of which was the charges being dropped against Jeff Davis. Had Johnson been removed, Davis would surely have hung as well as many other Confederates.

Because the man who would have replaced Johnson was Benjamin Wade, a Radical who made it plain that Davis should hang along with other leaders of the Confederacy. And he didn't give a damn about the Constitution or rule of Law. Pretty much like most Radicals.

Quantrill

Eisenschiml's book is available free of charge via my Civil War website. He made a very careful, comprehensive circumstantial case that the Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

Yes, Andrew Johnson has been unfairly maligned by most historians. I have two article links and several book links that defend Johnson on my Civil War site.

I frequently remind Johnson bashers that Johnson's reconstruction terms were very similar to Lincoln's terms, that the Radicals denounced Lincoln's terms, and that the Radicals' terms were far harsher than anything Lincoln envisioned.

 

[Quantrill]

Eisenschiml's book is available free of charge via my Civil War website. He made a very careful, comprehensive circumstantial case that the Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

Yes, Andrew Johnson has been unfairly maligned by most historians. I have two article links and several book links that defend Johnson on my Civil War site.

I frequently remind Johnson bashers that Johnson's reconstruction terms were very similar to Lincoln's terms, that the Radicals denounced Lincoln's terms, and that the Radicals' terms were far harsher than anything Lincoln envisioned.

Appreciate it, but I am a book person. I must have a book when studying a subject. I underline, make notes, some with very colorful language. But they help me when I am looking for something. Those that inherit my books will be greatly disappointed, because they won't be able to get rid of them.

And, if there was indeed a Yankee plot to kill Lincoln, then these are the same who Johnson now faces. And even if they were not part of the assassination plot, they still had terrible intentions toward the country and Constitution. They did plenty of damage, but for one vote, they would have done much more.

The problem with Lincoln is that whatever he said, may change. Lincoln had no problem lying but making it all appear 'legal'. I have no love for Lincoln and don't believe what many try and say, that all would have been better if Lincoln wasn't killed. Lincoln had no problem usurping the Constitution. His 'emancipation proclamation' was a usurping of the Constitution. He did not have the authority to proclaim the slaves in the South free. That would have to go through the amendment process. So, he no more cared for the Constitution then the Radicals did.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, by this time Andrew Johnson had wised up and had realized that Stanton's so-called "evidence" that Booth acted on orders from Davis was bogus and fabricated. Right after Lincoln's death, Stanton rushed to Johnson with this phony evidence and initially convinced Johnson that Davis and other high Confederate officials were behind the assassination. Johnson, to his credit, soon realized that Stanton had deceived him, and he soon began to suspect that Stanton and other Radicals were behind Lincoln's death.

And here's where Mikey goes into the full crazy.

Yup, Booth was really a radical Republican pretending to be a Southern Sympathizer.

the problem was, Johnson was a Southern Sympathizer... and Lincoln never should have taken him as a running-mate.

 

[mikegriffith1]

At present I am involved with 'the impeachment and attempted removal of Andrew Johnson from the Presidency'. For all these subjects are connected, and the failure of the Radicals to remove Johnson had some major consequences. One of which was the charges being dropped against Jeff Davis. Had Johnson been removed, Davis would surely have hung as well as many other Confederates.

Because the man who would have replaced Johnson was Benjamin Wade, a Radical who made it plain that Davis should hang along with other leaders of the Confederacy. And he didn't give a damn about the Constitution or rule of Law. Pretty much like most Radicals.

To follow up on your point about Andrew Johnson and the Radicals, I should mention that when it became apparent that Johnson was not going to allow Davis to be brought to trial on the basis of the Radicals' bogus evidence against him, two Radical Republicans in Congress plotted with Sanford Conover to produce false evidence that would connect Johnson himself with Lincoln's assassination.

Yes, two Radical Republican members of Congress conspired to falsely accuse a sitting president with involvement in the previous president's murder. And, yes, they did so with the same Sanford Conover, one of the discredited Davis-conspiracy witnesses. The two Republicans were Representatives James Ashley and Benjamin Butler. The scheme failed because Conover, fearing the two Congressmen weren't keeping their part of the deal, decided to reveal the plot to Johnson; he turned over to the president several documents that exposed the plan. Needless to say, Johnson was shocked by this information, and he immediately had the documents published in major newspapers, including the New York Times (Seymour Frank, The Conspiracy Against Jefferson Davis, pp. 37-38).

I discuss this shocking episode and the Radicals' attempt to blame Jefferson Davis for Lincoln's murder in "Northern Realities, Southern Secession, and Slavery."

 

[Quantrill]

To follow up on your point about Andrew Johnson and the Radicals, I should mention that when it became apparent that Johnson was not going to allow Davis to be brought to trial on the basis of the Radicals' bogus evidence against him, two Radical Republicans in Congress plotted with Sanford Conover to produce false evidence that would connect Johnson himself with Lincoln's assassination.

Yes, two Radical Republican members of Congress conspired to falsely accuse a sitting president with involvement in the previous president's murder. And, yes, they did so with the same Sanford Conover, one of the discredited Davis-conspiracy witnesses. The two Republicans were Representatives James Ashley and Benjamin Butler. The scheme failed because Conover, fearing the two Congressmen weren't keeping their part of the deal, decided to reveal the plot to Johnson; he turned over to the president several documents that exposed the plan. Needless to say, Johnson was shocked by this information, and he immediately had the documents published in major newspapers, including the New York Times (Seymour Frank, The Conspiracy Against Jefferson Davis, pp. 37-38).

I discuss this shocking episode and the Radicals' attempt to blame Jefferson Davis for Lincoln's murder in "Northern Realities, Southern Secession, and Slavery."

I was just getting into the perjury of Sanford Conover put forth by Ashley and Butler. I would like to say I am shocked, but after years of study, nothing surprises me about what that Yankee government would do to get it's way. If I am shocked, it is with the Northerners who tried to hang on to the Constitution and Law.

But, the Radicals were in power. The military was at their command. The Constitution and Law was against what they wanted to do. They started the war through lies and deception and manipulation. Waged the war against the citizenry of the South. Robbing, stealing, murdering, raping, starving. They are not going to change their ways after their victory. They are the same criminal element after the war as they were before and during the war.

In a way I truly sympathize with Johnson. But in a way I want to say to him, 'What did you expect'? You turned your back on your people of the South, and the people you turned to are now turning on you. It was he who claimed 'treason must be made odious'. He is finding out just how odious it has become with he the victim.

It is very interesting.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

[To Quantrill] You know why no one today yells, "Heil Hitler!" Because we hanged all the top Nazis and made sure everyone knew what they did was bad.

But, Joe, you have said in this very forum that "Hitler wasn't the problem" (that's a verbatim quote), and you have repeatedly argued that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, and that one of those reasons is that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI (a shameful Nazi lie that no one but you and other neo-Nazis and Jihadists still peddle).

And, actually, Joe, some people still do yell "Heil Hitler!" They're the people who repeat the same lies you peddle about the Jews wrecking Germany after WWI, about the Jews purposely attacking the USS Liberty in 1967, about the alleged existence of a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, about Israel being the aggressor and the poor innocent Hamas terrorists being the victims, etc., etc.

 

[JoeB131]

To follow up on your point about Andrew Johnson and the Radicals, I should mention that when it became apparent that Johnson was not going to allow Davis to be brought to trial on the basis of the Radicals' bogus evidence against him, two Radical Republicans in Congress plotted with Sanford Conover to produce false evidence that would connect Johnson himself with Lincoln's assassination.

You say that like it was a bad thing. Johnson was one of the worst presidents we ever had, he should have been removed, THEN they should have hanged Davis and the other traitors.

But, Joe, you have said in this very forum that "Hitler wasn't the problem" (that's a verbatim quote), and you have repeatedly argued that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, and that one of those reasons is that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI (a shameful Nazi lie that no one but you and other neo-Nazis and Jihadists still peddle).

the problem is that you guys think that hatred of the Jews was limited to the Nazis. GERMANS had a valid reason to hate them for all the shit they pulled during the Weimar Period. But we aren't allowed to discuss that.

Oh, look AfD, the far-right Wing Party, is growing in Germany now, I guess that terminal guilt trip does have an expiration date.

And, actually, Joe, some people still do yell "Heil Hitler!" They're the people who repeat the same lies you peddle about the Jews wrecking Germany after WWI, about the Jews purposely attacking the USS Liberty in 1967, about the alleged existence of a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, about Israel being the aggressor and the poor innocent Hamas terrorists being the victims, etc., etc.

Uh, yeah, guy, the days of passing off any criticism of the Zionist Entity as "Nazi" are over, bud.

Especially since the Zionists are acting like Nazis themselves.

"Never Again" has been replaced with "It's totally cool when we do it to less-white people."

 

[mikegriffith1]

the problem is that you guys think that hatred of the Jews was limited to the Nazis. GERMANS had a valid reason to hate them for all the shit they pulled during the Weimar Period. But we aren't allowed to discuss that.

Oh, look AfD, the far-right Wing Party, is growing in Germany now, I guess that terminal guilt trip does have an expiration date.

Uh, yeah, guy, the days of passing off any criticism of the Zionist Entity as "Nazi" are over, bud.

Especially since the Zionists are acting like Nazis themselves.

"Never Again" has been replaced with "It's totally cool when we do it to less-white people."

I'm glad to see you're doubling down on your ugly lies about Jews and Israel. You just can't help yourself.

As a reminder to any new readers, here are some of JoeB131's other appalling statements:

Again, Hitler wasn't the problem. The problem was your average German who had to eat the family dog in 1919 because the feckless idiots overthrew the Kaiser and forced a humiliating peace.

Now, if you want to downplay the roll Jewish revolutionaries played in toppling the Kaiser, or how Jewish Bankers screwed Germany in the economic turmoil that occurred in the 1920's, that's fine.

Was it [the Holocaust] bad? I guess.

The problem with most analysis of Nazism is that it ignores what an absolute [crap]-show Weimar Germany was.

Again, investigations [into the USS Liberty incident] that were told by LBJ what their conclusion was. But, no, no, our government isn't controlled by the Zionist Lobby at all.

You are right, I don't believe the Zionist *&$%$#, and I don't believe our lying traitor government that sold out to them decades ago.

This is the problem when you let Jews take over your government.

If Israel didn't exist, do you think we'd have a terror problem? We wouldn't.

Right, just keep pretending they [Jewish bankers who control the economy] aren't a thing.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm glad to see you're doubling down on your ugly lies about Jews and Israel. You just can't help yourself.

As a reminder to any new readers, here are some of JoeB131's other appalling statements:

Only appalling to sellouts like you.

You keep repeating these "appalling" statements, but you do nothing to refute them

Anyway, getting back to Mike's original premise, that black people just loved them some slavery sooo much they fought to keep it.

Myths & Misunderstandings | Black Confederates Archives- American Civil War Museum

Myth: Thousands of enslaved and free African American soldiers fought for the Confederacy For several decades, the question of whether or not …

acwm.org

But were African American laborers in the Confederate army formally enlisted in the army, equipped with uniforms, arms, and accoutrements, and paid for their own work, as were African Americans in the U.S. Army? No. Their status was that of enslaved or marginally free laborers serving in capacities in a military setting analogous to their roles in civilian life. Referring to such men as “soldiers” ignores a fundamental distinction between forced labor and military service.

However, even before the last months of the Civil War, there were African Americans in Confederate armies who met some of those customary criteria to be soldiers. Beginning in 1862, the Confederate army formally enlisted hundreds of cooks and musicians; those men were paid, but almost certainly not armed or uniformed.

In March 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law providing for the formal enlistment of African-American soldiers. When the Confederate army implemented the law it required masters to recognize slaves’ freedom before they could enlist. Not surprisingly, recruitment was slow. Possibly a few hundred men enlisted before Appomattox. Some of those men drilled on Richmond’s Capitol Square shortly before the Confederates evacuated the city, and apparently some traveled with Lee’s army and were involved in the Appomattox Campaign.

In the six months preceding passage of the March 1865 act, soldiers, civilians, newspaper editors, and public servants debated the proposal to arm the slaves. A few Confederate military units published circulars favoring the proposal, but other units opposed it, and many predicted privately that white Confederate troops would never consent to it. Significantly, in the course of that long and thorough debate about what would happen if the Confederacy used black troops, no one cited actual examples of African Americans fighting for the Confederacy in the first three years of the war.

 

[mikegriffith1]

mikegriffith1 said:
To follow up on your [Quantrill's] point about Andrew Johnson and the Radicals, I should mention that when it became apparent that Johnson was not going to allow Davis to be brought to trial on the basis of the Radicals' bogus evidence against him, two Radical Republicans in Congress plotted with Sanford Conover to produce false evidence that would connect Johnson himself with Lincoln's assassination.

JoeB131 said:
You say that like it was a bad thing.

Huh?! Uh, yeah, I do think it was a bad thing for members of Congress to use phony evidence to try to frame a sitting president for the death of his predecessor. I think that is a serious crime. That kind of intrigue and plotting has brought down governments and ruined nations.

Gee, why am I not surprised that you're just fine with such lawlessness?

Johnson was one of the worst presidents we ever had, he should have been removed,

Uh-huh. You don't know enough about Andrew Johnson to offer any credible opinions on him. I'm sure that what little knowledge you have on him is based on what you've skimmed on Wikipedia and in a few other shallow anti-Johnson online articles.

Johnson was actually an outstanding president, an honest man, an ardent foe of slavery, and a friend to blacks. Unlike many Northerners, Johnson supported qualified black suffrage. Johnson's "crimes" were his attempt to implement Lincoln's reconstruction terms and his firing of the most corrupt and tyrannical Secretary of War in the nation's history, Edwin Stanton, who was practically staging a coup against him to try to stop him from implementing Lincoln's sensible, lenient reconstruction terms.

I bet you have no clue that the Supreme Court later ruled in Johnson's favor, ruling that Congress could not prevent a president from firing a cabinet member. Are you aware that initially the Radicals did not even want to allow Johnson's lawyers to call witnesses in his defense at the Senate trial?

Gideon Welles, Lincoln's close friend and the Secretary of the Navy, noted the extreme bias and injustice of the Radicals' prosecution of Johnson:

Sumner and certain Senators do not conceal their readiness to proceed at once to judgment and condemnation without proof or testimony. In their unfitness and vindictive partisanship and hate, they would not award the President rights or privileges granted criminals for the court of errors or give him
time for preparation. They are really unwilling to allow him to make defense. The Constitution-breakers are trying the Constitution-defender; the law-breakers are passing condemnation on the law-supporter; the conspirators are sitting in judgment on the man who would not enter into their conspiracy, who was and is faithful to his oath, his country, the Union, and the Constitution. What a spectacle! (Lloyd Paul Stryker, Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, pp. 617-618; see also A Diary of the Reconstruction Period)

I've read five books on Andrew Johnson, at least a dozen online articles about him, all of his veto messages, five of his speeches, and the transcript of his Senate trial. I'm guessing this dwarfs what little reading you've done about him.

then they should have hanged Davis and the other traitors.

But to do that they would have had to prove in a court of law that secession was treason, and they were worried they could not prove that. The Radicals would have been in quite the pickle in a trial when Davis's lawyers proved that early American legal giants such as William Rawle and George Tucker said the Constitution allowed for secession, that Thomas Jeffferson and James Madison supported the right of secession, that the framers clearly never intended for the Union to be maintained by force, and that the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders believed the 13 Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England and viewed the British use of force against the Colonies as immoral and a violation of natural law.

Such evidence would not only have destroyed the case against Jefferson Davis but would have made the Republicans' refusal to allow the Southern states to leave in peace look bad.

As always when I reply to you, I wrote this reply for the sake of others, not because I have any expectation that you will engage in serious, candid dialogue.