In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
...if Lincoln had lost.
...would he be the Hero as he is portrayed today? What if Lee had been victorious at Gettysburg? What do you think he would historically be written about.?? Not looking for a fight about the war,but would like a good sound response...Thanks...
Comments
States would have the power delineated in the Constitution without the federal government being able to coerce them with funds stolen from the citizenry.
It might even be that the South would have become a separate province, free from the oppression of the idiotic collectivist ideology developed around the large cities of the North.
If the Confederates had won......Goldman Sachs would have taken over the Confederate Treasury and bankrupted them while something called The Confederate Reserve printed their money.
[:D][:D][:D][:D], priceless! (but most likely true.)
We have been spoon-fed the unquestionably immense value of Federal control of the States for all of our lives. We have passed Constitutional Amendments, particularly the 16th and 17th which were specifically designed to gut the fundamental principles of our once representative republic.
Of course Lincoln is a hero. He set the precedent whereby the individual states are subservient to the Feds, creating the environment where such Constitutional travesties can flourish.
Brad Steele
How would you have voted, would you vote Steven A Douglas who said he would have let the Confederacy secede. The big question of war still holds true today, what about the citizens that voted for Obama because he said he would stop the wars, Obama [God save us] as the first black Commander in Chief is presently close to sending boots into the Ukraine, or angering Putin who has 75% approval to Obamas single digit rating, Obama for different reasons does not even have the black vote presently
Impossible to say, blogdog37. Demagoguery was as alive and well in 1860 as it is today. I would like to think I would have voted for freedom and liberty, which would have suggested that I would have voted for a candidate that favored the individual states deciding if they wished to leave the Union. Given the economic realities of the time, however, many a Northerner no doubt voted their selfish self-interest, and would have voted to condemn the whites in the South to economic slavery to the Union.
Brad Steele
Amazing to see what excuses people will make to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives.
You can blame Hitler, or the Jews, it doesn't matter. If you do not control what is really important in your own life then it is because you have ceded that control to somebody else.
Life is tough, and carping about it and blaming others for your own failings is puerile and pointless.
Very true but it's sad to see the future being stolen from our coming generations. We can control a good part of our own lives but we are powerless to stop the runaway train that's approaching.
Thus if it is a Civil War would we not have only C.S.A. and no U.S.A.?
But if it was a war for confederate independence we would have both.
History is written by the victors. In the first case it would be evil Lincoln split the nation and caused the war losing the U.S.A.. In the second he would have been hated in the South because of the death and destruction and in the north the same reasons plus having lost the southern states.
I think the interesting question is how would he be viewed if he had not been killed. Would he have been able to walk the walk (with malice toward none)
and prevent the rape of the South during reconstruction.
The biggest loss to all was States Rights. Of course slavery was an issue and needed to end but I have never understood how any semi intelligent, "God fearing" person could justify slavery.
As for a cause for the war could you not consider the concern of northern manufactures may have feared having to compete with an increasing manufacturing base in the south using slave labor, like we are now with China.
Sorry, just how it is.[}:)]
Forget Gettysburg.....Lincoln was worried about losing the election in 1864 as the was still going rather badly....until Sheridan won at Cedar Creek (Oct '64) and destroyed Early's army and later Sherman took Atlanta (and destroyed Hood's army) and marched to the sea. Those two victories (along with the huge support from the AOP and their votes and their family votes) sealed his victory. But he was great nonetheless, be he the President of the US in the North and West. As I have said time and again this topic comes up, and as repeated here by "the middle" the South had no chance to win the war for the three reasons he mentions....plus no navy to speak off, a mounted cavalry that required each man to bring his own horse, no defense industry to speak of, outnumbered 3-1, surrounded by the USN at sea, enemy in the west and north, no RR to speak off, on and on and on. Kinda like Russia v Ukraine today. But great is great and Lincoln would still be great as he was the greatest POTUS writer and his words live forever. So, yes, "....he would historically be written about" as greatness is greatness and the written word survives the man. BTW....what did Jeff Davis ever write that we remember? Love it when Lincoln walked into Richmond and went to Davis's house and sat behind his desk! Just a week before he was killed. And Davis running for his life!
You forgot the "dead"...650,000 men killed because he chose to fight!The South could have sued for peace and got it,if they had invaded Washington after the first Battle of Manassas! Did you know that Lincoln and Grant didn't care about blacks? And Jews were treated with disdain as well...
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Forget Gettysburg.....Lincoln was worried about losing the election in 1864 as the was still going rather badly....until Sheridan won at Cedar Creek (Oct '64) and destroyed Early's army and later Sherman took Atlanta (and destroyed Hood's army) and marched to the sea. Those two victories (along with the huge support from the AOP and their votes and their family votes) sealed his victory. But he was great nonetheless, be he the President of the US in the North and West. As I have said time and again this topic comes up, and as repeated here by "the middle" the South had no chance to win the war for the three reasons he mentions....plus no navy to speak off, a mounted cavalry that required each man to bring his own horse, no defense industry to speak of, outnumbered 3-1, surrounded by the USN at sea, enemy in the west and north, no RR to speak off, on and on and on. Kinda like Russia v Ukraine today. But great is great and Lincoln would still be great as he was the greatest POTUS writer and his words live forever. So, yes, "....he would historically be written about" as greatness is greatness and the written word survives the man. BTW....what did Jeff Davis ever write that we remember? Love it when Lincoln walked into Richmond and went to Davis's house and sat behind his desk! Just a week before he was killed. And Davis running for his life!
You forgot the "dead"...650,000 men killed because he chose to fight!The South could have sued for peace and got it,if they had invaded Washington after the first Battle of Manassas! Did you know that Lincoln and Grant didn't care about blacks? And Jews were treated with disdain as well...
Well, at least Lincoln and Grant didnt tie them to a post and whip them, or sell their kids at the local auction.
BTW...Lincoln didnt choose to fight......tell me again....who fired first?
Re: Gen. Grant- if you visit the National Battlefield Park of Appomatox Manor in Hopewell, VA- where Grant set up his base to lay siege to Petersburg, and later take Richmond, you can see a photograph of one of Gen. Grant's 3 slaves standing outside the General's cabin.
They were servants, not slaves. They were paid, as free men are.
Nice try.
Slavery at White Haven
Many visitors to Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site are surprised to learn that slaves lived and worked on the nineteenth century farm known as White Haven. During the years 1854 to 1859 Grant lived here with his wife, Julia, and their children, managing the farm for his father-in-law, Colonel Dent. At that time no one suspected that Grant would rise from obscurity to achieve the success he gained during the Civil war. However, his experience working alongside the White Haven slaves may have influenced him in his later roles as the Union general who won the war which abolished that "peculiar institution," and as President of the United States. The interpretation of slavery at White Haven is therefore an important part of the mission of this historic site.
The Setting
Most slaveholders in Missouri owned few slaves; those who owned ten were considered wealthy. In the southeastern Bootheel area and along the fertile Missouri River valley known as "little Dixie," large, single-crop plantations predominated, with an intensive use of slave labor. Elsewhere in the state, large farms produced a variety of staples, including hemp, wheat, oats, hay, and corn. On many of these estates the owner worked alongside his slaves to harvest the greatest economic benefit from the land. Slavery was less entrenched in the city of St. Louis, where the African American population was 2% in 1860, down from 25% in 1830. Slaves were often "hired out" by their masters in return for an agreed upon wage. A portion of the wage was sometimes paid to slaves, allowing a measure of self-determination and in some cases the opportunity to purchase their freedom.
Early Farm Residents and Slavery
Each of the farm's early residents owned slaves during their tenure on the Gravois property. When Theodore and Anne Lucas Hunt purchased William Lindsay Long's home in 1818, there existed "several good log cabins" on the property-potential quarters for the five slaves purchased earlier by Hunt. The work of Walace, Andrew, Lydia, Loutette, and Adie would be an important part of the Hunts' farming venture. The Hunts sold the Gravois property to Frederick Dent in 1820, for the sum of $6,000. Naming the property "White Haven" after his family home in Maryland, Colonel Dent considered himself a Southern gentleman with slaves to do the manual labor of caring for the plantation. By the 1850s, eighteen slaves lived and worked at White Haven.
Growing Up as a Slave
In 1830, half of the Dent slaves were under the age of ten. Henrietta, Sue, Ann, and Jeff, among others, played with the Dent children. Julia Dent recalled that they fished for minnows, climbed trees for bird nests, and gathered strawberries. However, the slave children also had chores such as feeding chickens and cows, and they mastered their assigned tasks as the white children went off to school. Returning home from boarding school, Julia noted the transition from playmate to servant. She noted that the slave girls had "attained the dignity of white aprons." These aprons symbolized slave servitude, a departure from the less structured days of childhood play.
Household Responsibilities
Adult slaves performed many household chores on the Dent plantation. Kitty and Rose served as nurses to Julia and Emma, while Mary Robinson became the family cook. The wide variety of foods prepared in her kitchen were highly praised by Julia: "Such loaves of beautiful snowy cake, such plates full of delicious Maryland biscuit, such equisite custards and puddings, such omelettes, gumbo soup, and fritters." A male slave named "Old Bob," who traveled with the Dents from Maryland in 1816, had the responsibility to keep the fires going in White Haven's seven fireplaces. Julia thought Bob was careless to allow the embers to die out, as this forced him "to walk a mile to some neighbors and bring home a brand of fire from their backlog." Such "carelessness" provided Bob and many other slaves an opportunity to escape their masters' eyes.
Tending the Farm
Slave labor was used extensively in the farming and maintenance of the 850-acre plantation. Utilizing the "best improvements in farm machinery" owned by Colonel Dent, field hands plowed, sowed and reaped the wheat, oats, Irish potatoes, and Indian corn grown on the estate. Slaves also cared for the orchards and gardens, harvesting the fruits and vegetables for consumption by all who lived on the property. During Grant's management of the farm he worked side by side with Dan, one of the slaves given to Julia at birth. Grant, along with Dan and other slaves, felled trees and took firewood by wagon to sell to acquaintances in St. Louis. More than 75 horses, cattle, and pigs required daily attention, while grounds maintenance and numerous remodeling projects on the main house and outbuildings utilized the skills of those in servitude.
Personal Lives
Slaves claimed time for socializing amidst their chores. Corn shuckings provided one opportunity to come together as a community to eat, drink, sing, and visit, often including slaves from nearby plantations. Participation in religious activities, individually or as a group, also provided a sense of integrity. Julia remembered "Old Bob" going into the meadow to pray and sing. According to historian Lorenzo J. Greene, "St. Louis.was the only place in the state where the organized black church achieved any measure of success." Whether or not the Dent slaves were allowed to attend services is unknown.
Freedom
In Mary Robinson's July 24, 1885, recollections, during an interview for the St. Louis Republican memorial to Grant following his death, she noted that "he always said he wanted to give his wife's slaves their freedom as soon as he was able." In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned. During the Civil War, some slaves at White Haven simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri's constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven.
"I Ulysses S. Grant.do hereby manumit, emancipate and set free from Slavery my Negro man William, sometimes called William Jones.forever."
Further Reading:
Casey, Emma Dent. "When Grant Went A-Courtin'." Unpublished manuscript, Ulysses S. Grant NHS collection.
Grant, Julia Dent. The Personal Memoirs of Julia Dent Grant (Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant). Southern Illinois University Press, 1988.
Greene, Lorenzo, et al. Missouri's Black Heritage. University of Missouri Press, 1993.
Hurt, R. Douglas. Agriculture and Slavery in Missouri's Little Dixie. University of Missouri Press, 1992.
Vlach, John Michael. Back of the Big House. University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
Wade, Richard C. Slavery in the Cities: The South 1820-1860. Oxford University Press, 1964.
How would you have voted, would you vote Steven A Douglas who said he would have let the Confederacy secede. The big question of war still holds true today, what about the citizens that voted for Obama because he said he would stop the wars, Obama [God save us] as the first black Commander in Chief is presently close to sending boots into the Ukraine, or angering Putin who has 75% approval to Obamas single digit rating, Obama for different reasons does not even have the black vote presently
Steven A. Douglas won the election. Lincoln lost.
quote:Originally posted by blogdog37
How would you have voted, would you vote Steven A Douglas who said he would have let the Confederacy secede. The big question of war still holds true today, what about the citizens that voted for Obama because he said he would stop the wars, Obama [God save us] as the first black Commander in Chief is presently close to sending boots into the Ukraine, or angering Putin who has 75% approval to Obamas single digit rating, Obama for different reasons does not even have the black vote presently
Steven A. Douglas won the election. Lincoln lost.
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Forget Gettysburg.....Lincoln was worried about losing the election in 1864 as the was still going rather badly....until Sheridan won at Cedar Creek (Oct '64) and destroyed Early's army and later Sherman took Atlanta (and destroyed Hood's army) and marched to the sea. Those two victories (along with the huge support from the AOP and their votes and their family votes) sealed his victory. But he was great nonetheless, be he the President of the US in the North and West. As I have said time and again this topic comes up, and as repeated here by "the middle" the South had no chance to win the war for the three reasons he mentions....plus no navy to speak off, a mounted cavalry that required each man to bring his own horse, no defense industry to speak of, outnumbered 3-1, surrounded by the USN at sea, enemy in the west and north, no RR to speak off, on and on and on. Kinda like Russia v Ukraine today. But great is great and Lincoln would still be great as he was the greatest POTUS writer and his words live forever. So, yes, "....he would historically be written about" as greatness is greatness and the written word survives the man. BTW....what did Jeff Davis ever write that we remember? Love it when Lincoln walked into Richmond and went to Davis's house and sat behind his desk! Just a week before he was killed. And Davis running for his life!
You forgot the "dead"...650,000 men killed because he chose to fight!The South could have sued for peace and got it,if they had invaded Washington after the first Battle of Manassas! Did you know that Lincoln and Grant didn't care about blacks? And Jews were treated with disdain as well...
Well, at least Lincoln and Grant didnt tie them to a post and whip them, or sell their kids at the local auction.
BTW...Lincoln didnt choose to fight......tell me again....who fired first?
Who invaded who? Was the first battle fought on South Carolina soil? 650,000 died because Lincoln ordered it!Don't matter about sickness, only the dead during the war....More Germans died from influenza during WW1 than actual combat! Does that still not make them casualtys from war? The War was not fought to free slaves...Like all wars,it was monetary killing field.
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
quote:Originally posted by gary wray
Forget Gettysburg.....Lincoln was worried about losing the election in 1864 as the was still going rather badly....until Sheridan won at Cedar Creek (Oct '64) and destroyed Early's army and later Sherman took Atlanta (and destroyed Hood's army) and marched to the sea. Those two victories (along with the huge support from the AOP and their votes and their family votes) sealed his victory. But he was great nonetheless, be he the President of the US in the North and West. As I have said time and again this topic comes up, and as repeated here by "the middle" the South had no chance to win the war for the three reasons he mentions....plus no navy to speak off, a mounted cavalry that required each man to bring his own horse, no defense industry to speak of, outnumbered 3-1, surrounded by the USN at sea, enemy in the west and north, no RR to speak off, on and on and on. Kinda like Russia v Ukraine today. But great is great and Lincoln would still be great as he was the greatest POTUS writer and his words live forever. So, yes, "....he would historically be written about" as greatness is greatness and the written word survives the man. BTW....what did Jeff Davis ever write that we remember? Love it when Lincoln walked into Richmond and went to Davis's house and sat behind his desk! Just a week before he was killed. And Davis running for his life!
You forgot the "dead"...650,000 men killed because he chose to fight!The South could have sued for peace and got it,if they had invaded Washington after the first Battle of Manassas! Did you know that Lincoln and Grant didn't care about blacks? And Jews were treated with disdain as well...
pwillie....got to get your Civil War facts right. ".....650,000 men killed.." didn't happen. Do some basic cw research and you will find that many men died from illness not related to actual combat. And as to 1st Manassas......PGTB could have never taken DC as there were too many Union soldiers streaming into the city to defend it....and the Reb "Army" was just too disjointed and splintered outside the city. And both Lincoln and Grant did care about blacks....but for different reasons that you can (again) do some reading about to fill in your blanks. Your comment about jews will go without comment.
Lincoln did not kill 650,000 men? The point about the Jews,is the South embraced Judaism,and Lincoln and Grant had no use of them. Revisionist History is what is being taught in todays schools.If the South had not been invaded by the North, the war would not have been fought. Thats why the Civil War(in the south) is referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" .
The Confederacy, if it had survived was experience the very same problems that the US had experienced vis a vis confederation vs federalism. Davis was bemoaning the fact that as pres. Of the confederacy he had less political say and control over the government than did the State Governors of the Confederacy. If the Confederacy had survived, it would have taken on a form very much like today's Federal government, or it would have dissolved.
Jones, I agree...I think if the south had become in a position to sue for peace and the North accepted, that eventually the states would have merged into a more states rights Union than what we have today. The Nation could not have withstood any wars brought on by a foreign power if the states were split..I don't think true blue Southerner ever wants secession....just equality for states rights...and for self determination..
The South was able to realize a greater profit for their agricultural products from European buyers, but the government forced them to sell to the northern factories instead.
That, coupled with the Three Fifths Compromise, caused the South to say "Enough."
From Civilwar.org:
"Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War. This number comes from an 1889 study of the war performed by William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore. Both men fought for the Union. Their estimate is derived from an exhaustive study of the combat and casualty records generated by the armies over five years of fighting. A recent study puts the number of dead as high as 850,000."
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
Mr. Gary Ray: Professor of revisited history....I am a son of a Confederate Veteran. My great Grand Father fought for the Southern Cause. 46th Mississippi...I know my history,you just read victor scripts...The North attacked the South when they garrisoned Fort Sumter. Your back ground has nothing to do with the facts...Lincoln was not a friend of slaves,he used the slavery issue to encourage more Union members to back him in his war of Aggression...He killed as many of you as he did of us!His tyranny is still felt today with the Federal Laws that keep the states in shackles...You really need to look at the true story rather than some one on the winning sides ideas of history.I don't know where you live,but I'm glad its not next door to me.
First, to you it is Dr. Wray. Second, if we are comparing "bonafides" my ancestor, and the mother of my greatgrandmother, was Julia Peterson (do some research on Lt Gen Jubal Early and find out who she was) so I think I am solid in that area. I deal in CW facts, not fiction, and find it useless to debate folks like you who "wave the bloody flag" and are still fighting the War....from the side that lost. I actually live in one of the states that did not vote for Lincoln in either 1860 or 1864 and was one of the last states to do away with slavery or segregated schools. Again, just recommend that you do some basic research....perhaps by starting with the 128v War of the Rebellion (or called the OR) which is where all true students of the War begin...CW 101. Most libraries have copies and much is on line. And check out the lectures on AH3...you might learn something! And, BTW, you started this thread and now you are in what you said you didn't want "...a fight about the war." And you are getting some good sound responses that you evidently can't deal with....but easily corrected with some study on your part.
Dr. of what? Medical? All your doing is reciting an American History book, not real history as written by the world. Gary, I don't recognize theatrical Drs....you have your thoughts and I have mine, paid by my ancestors...Don't try talking down to me, I don't respect anyone who taught his supposed accomplishment ..I deal everyday with people like you, and most need to display their intelligence on a political forum....Go back to your knowledge based facts and have them for dinner...History was written on the battlefield...you ever been on one?...This is not some fictional facts written by the victors...I really thought more of you before your post about how intelligent you are...Dr., please forgive me for not taking your notes...LOL![:D][:D] Could you be Dr Pepper?
Usually the Lincoln critics will side with the separatist states, claiming they had a right to succeed. They do if it is the will of the people, I suppose by some democratic vote, but this never happened. The civil war conspirators were taking the south to join with Mexico and the Caribbean Isls (to deliberately instigate the war!). This gave Washington DC a pretext to invade the states, previously limited in jurisdiction to DC, which is what happened; both sides ran by the same conspiracy.