Author Topic: Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...  (Read 424 times)

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« on: November 29, 2003, 08:29:48 PM »
I just read an excellent essay regarding the Civila War by James M. McPherson who is a Professor of American History at Princeton.

Several passages that I found compelling dealt with what was known in 1863 as "Peace Democrats" or as the republicans called them, "Disloyal Copperheads"

See how many of these passages can be attributed to the Democratic Party today with regards to Iraq. How different would our nation be today if we followed the advice of these "Peace Democrats" or if they controlled the congress at the time, and went ahead with their plan to negotiate a peace with the Confederate states of America on their terms of Seperation?


After the Seven Days Battles:
"President Lincoln lamented privately, 'It seems unreasonable that a series of successes extending through half a year and clearing more than 100,000 square miles of country should help us so little, while a single half defeat [the seven-days battles] should hurt us so much.

Unreasonable or not it was a fact, The peace wing of democratic party stepped up its attacks on Lincolns policy of trying to restore the union by war.

The peace democrats insisted the Northern Armies could never conquer the South and that the government should seek an armistice and peace negotiations. Confederate military success in the summer of 1862 boosted the credibility of these arguments"

"Rather than give up and negotiate a peace, however, Lincoln and the republican congress acted dramatically to intesify the war."

"Stonewall Jackson about to invade Maryland..Disgust with our present govenment is  certainly universal"----A New York Diarist

"Democrats hoped to capitalize on this disgust on the upcoming congressional elections."

"Democrats seemed sure of gaining control of the House on their platform of an Armistice and Peace neogtiations."

"Robert E. Lee was well aware of this possibility. It was one of the factors that promted his decision to invade Maryland despite the poor physical and logisitcal condition of his army". Here is an enemy to the UNited States conductin military actions to impact the vote in a congressional election. I wonder who else might try this with the '04 presidential campaign.

Lee wrote to Jefferson Davis "The present posture of afairs places it in our power to propose the the US gevernment the recognition of our independance. Such a proposal of peace would enable the people of the US to determine at the coming elections whether they will support those who favor a prolongation of the war or those who wish to bring it to a termination".

It would seem some thing have not changed much in this country over the past 140 years. Perhaps it is time we learned from a past.

Offline lord dolf vader

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2003, 01:17:14 AM »
ohh yea and it dosent work and funboy lincoln gets to continue slaughtering my relatives for 2 more years. Oh i  love storys where inevetable peace is narroly averted and hundreds of thousands needlessly die. glad you think the republican plan to extend the suffereing for no reason is then is pertenent to the present situation. i agree.



and at the end this guy  is killed by a guy who then shouts "sic semper tyrannis".

great story.

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4298
      • Wait For It
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2003, 01:21:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ohh yea and it dosent work and funboy lincoln gets to continue slaughtering my relatives for 2 more years. Oh i  love storys where inevetable peace is narroly averted and hundreds of thousands needlessly die. glad you think the republican plan to extend the suffereing for no reason is then is pertenent to the present situation. i agree.



and at the end this guy  is killed by a guy who then shouts "sic semper tyrannis".

great story.



Get back under your bridge retarded TROLL!
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2003, 01:28:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tumor
Get back under your bridge retarded TROLL!


As usual, I didn't even understand a word he said.

Offline majic

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2003, 01:29:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ohh yea and it dosent work and funboy lincoln gets to continue slaughtering my relatives for 2 more years. Oh i  love storys where inevetable peace is narroly averted and hundreds of thousands needlessly die. glad you think the republican plan to extend the suffereing for no reason is then is pertenent to the present situation. i agree.



and at the end this guy  is killed by a guy who then shouts "sic semper tyrannis".

great story.


I bet you refer to the Civil War as "the war of Northern agression," don't you?

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2003, 02:15:58 AM »
Lord Dweeb Vador's version of the civil war!


1.  The South was oppressed by the north by sanctions wich killed many southern babys because the evil north wouldnt let them buy medicine

2. Lincoln himself lied during the emencipation proclimation because lincoln himself may have owned slaves thus he had no credibility to free the slaves

3. Slavery never really killed anybody

4.  The north was unjustified for going to war because the south never really succeded from the union.

5.  There is no evidence that slavery ever happend in the south....no smoking gun was ever found.



just my rant....he didnt make a lick of sense to me either

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2003, 03:23:43 AM »
Quote
Lincoln himself lied during the Emancipation Proclamation



he didn't lie in it. but it is often misquoted lately.

 it didn't make slavery illegle in the united states, it freed slaves in confederate states only,  and only in the parts of those states that hadn't already been captured by the north.  it doesn't adress the legality of slavery anywhere, just freed the slaves that happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Quote
........"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.      .......


 or read the whole thing at the national archives

btw- the civil war wasn't about slavery,  Lincoln did'n issue the Emancipation Proclamation unitl almost the 3rd year of the war.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2003, 03:38:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
btw- the civil war wasn't about slavery,  Lincoln did'n issue the Emancipation Proclamation unitl almost the 3rd year of the war.


Quote
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

-South Carolina Legistlature, Adopted December 24, 1860


For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.


The civil war, from its very inception was about slavery
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline majic

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2003, 10:26:20 AM »
You will hear many people proclaim it was about state's rights and all that, but Holden is right.  The "right" that most of the Southern politicians were concerned about was in fact slavery.  Funny thing is, most of those who fought for the South were not slave holders; in fact, only a very small percentage of the South had enough money to afford them.

Lincoln, didn't focus on the issue himself to avoid angering the slave holding states that stuck with the Union.

It should also be noted that the war dragged on mostly because of the incompetence of Union commanders and those that appointed them.  (possibly Lincoln's fault, but in a round about way.)

Lee was not that spectacular a commander (and he had very little to work with), but he was audacious and so were some of his commanders (Jackson, namely).  Geez, he divided his army in the face of a vastly superior force and got away with it.  It finally caught up with him at Gettysburg.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2003, 10:37:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by majic
Lee was not that spectacular a commander (and he had very little to work with), but he was audacious and so were some of his commanders (Jackson, namely).  


[Foghorn Leghorn voice] My God boy! How could you possibly demean the name of our righteous, exalted, and sainted commander, General Robert E. Lee? Take back your audacious statement immediately, or I shall demand satisfaction!  [/Foghorn Leghorn voice]
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2003, 11:18:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
he didn't lie in it. but it is often misquoted lately.

 it didn't make slavery illegle in the united states, it freed slaves in confederate states only,  and only in the parts of those states that hadn't already been captured by the north.  it doesn't adress the legality of slavery anywhere, just freed the slaves that happened to be in the right place at the right time.

 
 or read the whole thing at the national archives

btw- the civil war wasn't about slavery,  Lincoln did'n issue the Emancipation Proclamation unitl almost the 3rd year of the war.


wasnt slavery allready illeagal in the north?

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2003, 01:06:22 PM »
Quote
wasnt slavery allready illeagal in the north?


no, not in every northern state.  the slaves in northern border states and in territories of southern states that had already been captured by the north, where not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.  only the slaves in states and areas still held by the confederates where freed.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2003, 01:21:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
only the slaves in states and areas still held by the confederates where freed.


Maryland, for example, was a slave state but not in rebellion against the union, so therefore had slavery until it was abolished in 1865 by the adoption of the 13th amendment.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2003, 01:24:35 PM by Holden McGroin »
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline majic

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
Democrats in 1863 and 2003..some things never Change...
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2003, 06:18:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
[Foghorn Leghorn voice] My God boy! How could you possibly demean the name of our righteous, exalted, and sainted commander, General Robert E. Lee? Take back your audacious statement immediately, or I shall demand satisfaction!  [/Foghorn Leghorn voice]



:rofl