Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo

Expand Messages
  • richard@rcroker.com
    TRL -- Actually there s not a great deal of passion...it s just a matter of history and we ve all read different sources and we all have different opinions.
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      TRL --

      Actually there's not a great deal of passion...it's just a matter of history
      and we've all read different sources and we all have different opinions.
      That;s part of the joy of studying history. There are so many things
      (especailly when it comes to examining the human heart) that we can never
      know -- we can only guess.

      As to Lincoln and slavery -- I'll stick by my guns. He was never an
      "abolishonist" like Chase and Wade and that lot. He was, in fact, by modern
      standards, a racist. He was a 19th century man, with attitudes that were
      very progressive for the time, but he was nowhere near the crusader many
      want him to be. I still admire him above all other US Presidents. What he
      did -- whatever he did -- his first concern was for the good of the
      nation -- for the preservation of the Union -- for the future of democracy.
      The majority rules -- and the minority MUST comply. Otherwise democracy as
      a grand experiment is doomed. That's the weight he carried and it had
      little to do with slavery. That's all. It's just history.

      Richard
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <tlivesey@...>
      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo


      >
      > Clearly, there was a great deal of passion over the slavery issue. I fail
      to
      > see
      > how the mere issuance of a proclamation would diffuse that passion. The EP
      > itself could not have changed anyone's opinion. I can't think of a single
      > controverial question in which, say, the Supreme Court issued a definitve
      > ruling and the losing side simply gave up and agreed the other side was
      right
      > after all. The EP was only a statement of the mood which had already taken
      root
      > in the North, had already made it clash with the South for several
      decades, had
      > already elected Lincoln, and had already provoked the war.
      >
      > Yes, Lincoln was for gradual abolution of slaves. He was, on the other
      hand,
      > quite firm in the immediate sessation of the creation of new slave states,
      and
      > not allowing slaves into the territories. Up to Jan 1 1863 he was willing
      to
      > leave slavery alone in the existing slave states. This stand alone was
      enough
      > to provoke war with the North. There simply was no room for compromise.
      The two
      > sides could not function together. They might cease their hostilities, but
      each
      > would use this time to prepare for the next outbreak. One of them could
      not
      > survive.
      >
      > TRL
      >
      > Quoting richard@...:
      >
      > >
      > > We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few
      and
      > > far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in
      the
      > > Union army -- that soldiers and officers would throw down their arms and
      go
      > > home as a result. Understand that I am not talking about what was true,
      but
      > > about what powerful people BELIEVED might be true. JL Chamberlain was a
      > > rare exception to the rule. My research shows opposition to the EP in
      the
      > > Union army to be almost universal. Even in the likes of the Harvard
      > > Regiment. Until the EP (and even only a matter of weeks before)
      Lincoln's
      > > public position was "you can keep your slaves." Ref: First inaugural
      > > address and the famous letter to Horace Greeley, dated early September,
      > > 1862. Even when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand"
      he
      > > didn't advocate the total and immediate abolishment of the practice.
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: <tlivesey@...>
      > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:44 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      >
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.