Happy Birthday Mr. President!!!

[Pvt. Sweetey]

Hopefully nobody forgot that Abraham Lincoln's Birthday is today!
If you did then ITS HIS BIRTHDAY TODAY! YAYYYyyyyy....

I'm sure the Rebels are partyin like there's no tomorrow haha

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

Happy Birthday, boss!

[agrnbrt]

deletion - THP; modern political commentary
May mr lincoln rot in damnation forever for what he did to this country.

[Robert A Mosher]

Hmm, perhaps Darwin got it wrong after all - the species doesn't seem to be getting any smarter or bet---

Oh, sorry - that's a different thread!

Robert A. Mosher

[agrnbrt]

deletion - THP; modern political commentary
May mr lincoln rot in damnation forever for what he did to this country.

MR Moderator. What was modern about my statement?
I have a printed copy of it. It has nothing to do with "W" as you put in the PM to me.
So I ask you again.
How is ANY part of my statement modern my good man?

[tompritchett]

I assumed that the W in your comment about finishing 5 years earlier was George W and you were referring to his not getting re-elected. (A point to consider - if one person can make such an interpretation, it is likely that others can also reach the conclusion about what you are saying.) If that was not the case, feel free to re-post that section with a slight edit that makes it more clear exactly what you are referring to.

[Robert A Mosher]

deletion - THP; modern political commentary
May mr lincoln rot in damnation forever for what he did to this country.

If he does/is, and personally I rather doubt it, he has lots of company from the secessionists - it took two sides to make that war.

Robert A. Mosher

[agrnbrt]

I assumed that the W in your comment about finishing 5 years earlier was George W and you were referring to his not getting re-elected. (A point to consider - if one person can make such an interpretation, it is likely that others can also reach the conclusion about what you are saying.) If that was not the case, feel free to re-post that section with a slight edit that makes it more clear exactly what you are referring to.

The "W" that you keep throwing out was not a lone "W". It was actually if you looked, part of "good ol' JW" meaning John Wilkes, as in BOOTH. 5 years, meaning 5 years too late. As Boooth should have got to the snake sooner. Before he ruined this country by throwing out the constitution.

[Pvt. Sweetey]

deletion - THP; modern political commentary
May mr lincoln rot in damnation forever for what he did to this country.

I'm sure he's in Heaven right now Mr. agrnbrt, proud of what he did to this country in the liberation of blacks from white tyranny. I know I am proud of him.

Thankfully for you, I will say no more.

[jurgitemvaletem]

The "W" that you keep throwing out was not a lone "W". It was actually if you looked, part of "good ol' JW" meaning John Wilkes, as in BOOTH. 5 years, meaning 5 years too late. As Boooth should have got to the snake sooner. Before he ruined this country by throwing out the constitution.


So how about you tell us all your real name and which unit you fall in with so, at least I know who to never take the field with or against...

[tompritchett]

The "W" that you keep throwing out was not a lone "W". It was actually if you looked, part of "good ol' JW" meaning John Wilkes, as in BOOTH. 5 years, meaning 5 years too late.

My mistake and I am sorry.

[tompritchett]

he has lots of company from the secessionists - it took two sides to make that war.

The names of Yancy and Rhett particularly come to mind as it seems to me that they did every thing that they could to make sure no last minute compromises would be made which might brought the name back together peacefully.

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

deletion - THP; modern political commentary
May mr lincoln rot in damnation forever for what he did to this country.

A question from my non-reenacting friend and myself.

What exactly did he do that angers you so? :confused:

[agrnbrt]

A question from my non-reenacting friend and myself.
What exactly did he do that angers you so? :confused:

How about throwing out the constitution for one?
Waging war without congressional approval?
Imprisoning memebers of congress without trial because of Southron sympathy? Not to mention locking up people in Maryland because they spoke out against the "union"?
Or perhaps the riots and the massacre in baltimore, ala Tiannemen Square(sp)? Gee we all cried and yelled "FOUL", when the Chinese did yet. But it was ok for lincoln do order it?
Using foreign troops against Americans? Yes, he gave a "bounty or bonus", what ever youd like to call it to foreingers who enlisted.
How about the whole amancipation bull sh*t. He amanicpated all the blacks in the South only. Nice of him considering the South had broken free of the union all ready. So what jusrisdiction did lincoln have over another sovereign nation? And how about that fact that the north still had slaves working on the new york city docks, in hartford ct. and other places up to 7 years? SO much for lincolns amancipation.
Enough for you? Need more?

[sbl]

I hear he was bad speller too.

[tater]

I'm sure he's in Heaven right now Mr. agrnbrt, proud of what he did to this country in the liberation of blacks from white tyranny. I know I am proud of him.

Thankfully for you, I will say no more.


I think he is in the eighth circle of **** with sherman, mengele, stalin, and Marx.

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

How about throwing out the constitution for one?
Waging war without congressional approval?
Imprisoning memebers of congress without trial because of Southron sympathy? Not to mention locking up people in Maryland because they spoke out against the "union"?
Or perhaps the riots and the massacre in baltimore, ala Tiannemen Square(sp)? Gee we all cried and yelled "FOUL", when the Chinese did yet. But it was ok for lincoln do order it?
Using foreign troops against Americans? Yes, he gave a "bounty or bonus", what ever youd like to call it to foreingers who enlisted.
How about the whole amancipation bull sh*t. He amanicpated all the blacks in the South only. Nice of him considering the South had broken free of the union all ready. So what jusrisdiction did lincoln have over another sovereign nation? And how about that fact that the north still had slaves working on the new york city docks, in hartford ct. and other places up to 7 years? SO much for lincolns amancipation.
Enough for you? Need more?

Yup, I want more. I want all you got on what Lincoln did wrong. And I mean what he actually did wrong, not what you think he did wrong. ;-)

[Pvt. Sweetey]

How about throwing out the constitution for one?
Waging war without congressional approval?
Imprisoning memebers of congress without trial because of Southron sympathy? Not to mention locking up people in Maryland because they spoke out against the "union"?
Or perhaps the riots and the massacre in baltimore, ala Tiannemen Square(sp)? Gee we all cried and yelled "FOUL", when the Chinese did yet. But it was ok for lincoln do order it?
Using foreign troops against Americans? Yes, he gave a "bounty or bonus", what ever youd like to call it to foreingers who enlisted.
How about the whole amancipation bull sh*t. He amanicpated all the blacks in the South only. Nice of him considering the South had broken free of the union all ready. So what jusrisdiction did lincoln have over another sovereign nation? And how about that fact that the north still had slaves working on the new york city docks, in hartford ct. and other places up to 7 years? SO much for lincolns amancipation.
Enough for you? Need more?

1: Waging war without congressional approval

Ha! If you recall, The south attacked the US first. This was a pretty good
reason to call war without all the democrats n Republicans fussing over what to do. Lincoln made a good call waging war with the south because THE SOUTH ATTACKED US FIRST.

2: Riot

Duh. What would YOU do if there was a riot?

3: Using foreign troops against Americans

Uh... you mean using foreign troops against CONFEDERATES..
Same thing happened in the Revolutionary War. The British used Hussian troops against the colonists, whom of which most of them were from ENGLAND... Also notice those "foreigners" were actually immigrants that moved to the US prior to the war. They did not hire men from outside the States. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

4: Emancipation Proclaimation

Yes but not only did the proclaimation free all southern slaves but also northern slaves. Of course that doesn't mean the North never had another black slave again, but that proclaimation said that they now had the right to be free. The slaves in the South heard of this and made them want to run away from to the north. Can anyone explain this better?

Please humor me to more as like Lincoln, I do not wait for congressional approval to wage war.

[sbl]

"....riots and the massacre in baltimore.."

Well, they shouldn't have messed with Massachusetts. It was Patriot's Day.

[sbl]

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9291/eclincje1.jpg

[tater]

http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo221/Tyler_Gibson/stuff%20for%20sale/1232920225996.jpg

Sweety.... I don't even want to start with you, because Tom will likely ban me.

[sbl]

Hahahhahahaha!!!! Poor Thomas!

[tompritchett]

Uh... you mean using foreign troops against CONFEDERATES..
Same thing happened in the Revolutionary War. The British used Hussian troops against the colonists, whom of which most of them were from ENGLAND... Also notice those "foreigners" were actually immigrants that moved to the US prior to the war. They did not hire men from outside the States. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

How about sending agents to Germany and other European countries and offering U.S. citizenships to any able bodied men that would immigrate to the U.S. for the purpose of joining the Union army. Also having agents waiting on the docks and offering incoming immigrants U.S. citizenship to anyone that would serve a tour with the Union army. Since neither of these groups had any prior interest in any of the issues involved in the war and the preceeding secessions, I would consider these actions to be "hiring" non-Americans.

However, your point about the South starting the shooting is a very valid point. IMHO, firing the first shot was the absolute worse thing that the Confederacy could have done. Unfortunately, calmer minds could not prevale over the South Carolina hot-heads and those whose hubris led them to believe that the undermanned Confederacy could whip the Union quickly and get back to their normal business. It was this same hubris that also led them to believe that they could use the threat of a cutting off the flow of cotton to the England as blackmail to force England to side with them in the war.

[tompritchett]

Moderator Hat: Gentlemen, I have just deleted a couple of posts where the poster resorted to name calling. This is not allowed under forum guidelines and I will continue to delete such posts regardless of who started it. I really don't care who starts fights, I just clean them up. If you are becoming so emotional about the subject that you can not discuss it in a calm and respectful manner, I strongly suggest that you back away from the keyboard and come back some other time when you can be calm and unemotional. I really don't care about what your personal feelings are about Lincoln, I only care how you interact with the other individuals on this forum as you discuss your feelings.

[Pvt. Sweetey]

http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo221/Tyler_Gibson/stuff%20for%20sale/1232920225996.jpg

Sweety.... I don't even want to start with you, because Tom will likely ban me.

HAHAHA Monty Python...whew...thats funny....wow......

[MMurphy]

4: Emancipation Proclaimation

Yes but not only did the proclaimation free all southern slaves but also northern slaves. Of course that doesn't mean the North never had another black slave again, but that proclaimation said that they now had the right to be free. The slaves in the South heard of this and made them want to run away from to the north. Can anyone explain this better?

Please humor me to more as like Lincoln, I do not wait for congressional approval to wage war.

Ummmm....Sweetey; Not to rattle your cage or anything but I've been re-reading the Harpers History of the Civil War, (the reprints of the Harpers Weekly covering the war and afterward), and I am finding out that *gasp* believe it or not, at the end of the war, there were STILL legal slaves in Pennsylvania, (less than 100, but still there), and that when the Amendment to ban slavery was voted on Delaware voted against it!
Also if you read the Emancipation Proclamation it only freed slaves in Southern States, or Southern Territories held by Union Forces. It didn't do anything for slaves in Northern States, (and like I said, there were some. Not many but they were there...)

[Radar]

Ummmm....Sweetey; Not to rattle your cage or anything but I've been re-reading the Harpers History of the Civil War, (the reprints of the Harpers Weekly covering the war and afterward), and I am finding out that *gasp* believe it or not, at the end of the war, there were STILL legal slaves in Pennsylvania, (less than 100, but still there), and that when the Amendment to ban slavery was voted on Delaware voted against it!
Also if you read the Emancipation Proclamation it only freed slaves in Southern States, or Southern Territories held by Union Forces. It didn't do anything for slaves in Northern States, (and like I said, there were some. Not many but they were there...)
Yes, and Kentucky, where Mr. and Mrs Lincoln were both born, still had LEGAL slaves. Kentucky never left the Union. Kentucky didn't ratify the 13th Amendment , abolishing slavery, till the [B]1960s[B], yes, the 1960s. How about that?

[hanktrent]

So here's a question, for those who criticize Lincoln for not freeing all the slaves immediately. What could he have done, legally, to free the slaves immediately in loyal territory? He's already accused of overstepping his legal bounds enough, but I'd think that depriving law-abiding citizens of their property without their consent would be taking it too far.

A vote within a state, or a constitutional amendment binding on all states even if some didn't ratify it, seem the obvious legal ways, and those were the steps that were taken.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Pvt Schnapps]

How about sending agents to Germany and other European countries and offering U.S. citizenships to any able bodied men that would immigrate to the U.S. for the purpose of joining the Union army. Also having agents waiting on the docks and offering incoming immigrants U.S. citizenship to anyone that would serve a tour with the Union army. Since neither of these groups had any prior interest in any of the issues involved in the war and the preceeding secessions, I would consider these actions to be "hiring" non-Americans.

Both sides happily recruited resident foreigners, as Ella Lohn's two books attested to some time ago. As the war went on, both sides became increasingly desperate for fresh bodies. The north, with its greater finances, offered larger and larger bounties as a carrot, with the threat of a draft as the stick. The south resorted to outright conscription.

While some 200,000 men born in Germany -- and about 140,000 born in Ireland -- served in the United States Army, these represented perhaps a quarter of the total number of men who enlisted. And most of them were resident in the United States at the beginning of the war. Those raised in ethnic regiments had some of the finer motivations for service that you would find on either side and responded to the call before the advent of large bounties. The majority of them gave their lives or health to the Union and, by 1864, the most famous German and Irish regiments had mustered out or declined to shadows of themselves.

That's not to say that some bounty agents didn't grab FOB immigrants, but I think those stories are exaggerated in southern folklore. The fact is that the north did not have to go far afield for additional recruits. They came nowhere so close to exhausting the domestic sources of manpower as did the south, and by late in the war were able to deploy the new regiments of the USCT. In addition, large numbers of Canadians responded to bounties.

Nothing occurred during the Civil War equivalent to the British government's leasing of German regiments for service in North America. The "foreigners" who served both sides generally had a similar motivation -- they wanted to prove to their neighbors that they were good Americans, too. If the south didn't benefit from as many it was due to their not having the kind of society or economy that encouraged the immigration of free labor before the war. It was, in fact, just one more way in which slavery contributed to its own undoing.

[tompritchett]

If the south didn't benefit from as many it was due to their not having the kind of society or economy that encouraged the immigration of free labor before the war. It was, in fact, just one more way in which slavery contributed to its own undoing.

Very true. Isn't nice when this topic can be discussed in a non-emotional and respectful manner.

[jthlmnn]

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't slaves in Union States granted emancipation upon enlistment in the Federal Army? (Late '63/early '64 and onward.) I also recall $300 compensation offered to the the former owners, if they were loyal, and emancipation of the former slave's - now Union Soldier's- family if the former owner was not.

[Radar]

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't slaves in Union States granted emancipation upon enlistment in the Federal Army? (Late '63/early '64 and onward.) I also recall $300 compensation offered to the the former owners, if they were loyal, and emancipation of the former slave's - now Union Soldier's- family if the former owner was not.
Yes they were. Not sure about compensation to the owner. After an incident, long story, at Camp Nelso, KY, the families of the enlistees were also granted freedom upon the soldier's enlistment after late '63/early '64.

[agrnbrt]

So here's a question, for those who criticize Lincoln for not freeing all the slaves immediately. What could he have done, legally, to free the slaves immediately in loyal territory? He's already accused of overstepping his legal bounds enough, but I'd think that depriving law-abiding citizens of their property without their consent would be taking it too far.Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hmmm, really now? You mean like the $4 BILLION, yes BILLION with a "B", he took in slave value from the SOUTHRON plantation owners with his amancipation prolcomation did? Oh and thats WITHOUT ANY compinsation.
That's why this will never end. The north won an got to write the history. As all victors of war do. The truth is NOT taught in schools And is ralely told unless one digs. And thats why SOUTHRONERS are so passionate about the war til this day!.
GOD BLESS THE CONFEDERATE STATES of AMERICA !

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

Hmmm, really now? You mean like the $4 BILLION, yes BILLION with a "B", he took in slave value from the SOUTHRON plantation owners with his amancipation prolcomation did? Oh and thats WITHOUT ANY compinsation.
That's why this will never end. The north won an got to write the history. As all victors of war do. The truth is NOT taught in schools And is ralely told unless one digs. And thats why SOUTHRONERS are so passionate about the war til this day!.
GOD BLESS THE CONFEDERATE STATES of AMERICA !

I've seen it several times on the Internet, but I've never understand what it was; what is "southron" or "southroner?" Why is it spelled like that?

Please note, Mr. Wood, that I am speaking respectfully to you. I hope you'll respond in kind.

[agrnbrt]

Young Mister Benner, on your question of the spelling of SOUTHRON & SOUTHRONER. It's actually very simple if you have ever heard a true SOUTHRONER speaking. (I first picked up on it when stationed at Ft. Benning, Ga.) It's a matter of the SOUTHRON drawl/brogue. When written word was first learned by the poor farmer, things were spelled out phonetically. And I guess it stuck. Of course it can varry from state to state. Next time your at an event listen to some true SOUTHRONERS speaking. You'll understand rigth away what I am talking about.
By the way, my wife used to break my chops all the time when we were down South and I'd pick up my drawl. She at first thought I was being a smart a**. But when a lady in North Carolina asked me how a good ol' boy hooked up with a yankee girl, I had to laugh. Especially when I told her I was born in Philadelphia and she then asked me, "Philadelphia Missisippi?" and I said, "no Philadelphia Pa." That shut my wifes mouth at last. I guess 5 years in Gods country made a lasting impression on my vocal chords.

[hanktrent]

Hmmm, really now? You mean like the $4 BILLION, yes BILLION with a "B", he took in slave value from the SOUTHRON plantation owners with his amancipation prolcomation did? Oh and thats WITHOUT ANY compinsation.
That's why this will never end. The north won an got to write the history. As all victors of war do. The truth is NOT taught in schools And is ralely told unless one digs. And thats why SOUTHRONERS are so passionate about the war til this day!.
GOD BLESS THE CONFEDERATE STATES of AMERICA !

Uh, the rant really doesn't help, because if someone's shooting at you, it's generally considered okay to do what you need, to get them to stop, including confiscate their property if you think it would help. For some reason, firing on U.S. soldiers has never been taken kindly by the U.S. government. That's the difference between northern and southern slave-holders in 1863.

Admittedly, southerners realized in 1860 that the north had the votes to take away their slaves eventually, and secession was the only way they could see to prevent it. The constitutional amendment proved them right.

But any response to the actual question? How could Lincoln have legally included the slaves of loyal citizens in northern states, in the emancipation proclamation?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[agrnbrt]

Mr Trent, how about looking at a time table of the events before trying to make a statement like that? That way we can have a discussion with some merit instead of the typical northern apologist diatribe.

[hanktrent]

Mr Trent, how about looking at a time table of the events before trying to make a statement like that? That way we can have a discussion with some merit instead of the typical northern apologist diatribe.

What are you talking about? I'm posting with an emphasis on the period southern viewpoint.

Where are you seeing mistakes in the following timeline?

--Lincoln elected.

--South realizes they're losing political power and the north is dedicated to taking their slaves away and may now have a chance to do so. That's all over the newspapers and magazines published by southerners in the south, even though the northern politicians denied it at the time.

--South seceeds. War gets underway.

--Lincoln issues emancipation proclamation, freeing the slaves of citizens in rebellion.

--Enough states ratify a constitutional amendment that frees slaves nationwide, even in states that vote not to ratify it. The southerners' pre-war prediction comes true.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net