Apparently the blogger at Old Hickory has taken a shine to this site. In acknowledgment of Confederate Heritage Month a number of my entries were featured on today’s post. Thanks for the kind words and vote of approval
Confederate Heritage Month is Upon Us
Civil War Memory has moved to Substack! Don’t miss a single post. Subscribe below.
Bruce,
My objection was to your choice of words and phraseology describing Lee and the CW. And I can quote out of context as well such as the following from Lincoln:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
“I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
Hope this isn’t considered to be too emotional for you.
Hi Bruce, — Well, I guess that’s what happens when you let your emotions guide your reasoning. I have no idea what is meant by drawing a comparison with the Watts riots. It’s all pretty much irrelevant, but as you noticed I warned him about using my site as a place to vent. It will not happen again.
And thanks for your post, Kevin.
Apparently your commenter, Jim, has me confused with someone else. I don’t describe the leaders of the Confederacy as “wild evil men intent on only violence and destruction”. They were very much intent of preserving what their spokesmen proudly called “our sacred institutions of slavery and white supremacy”.
Old Hickory is clearly one biased individual regarding the CW. I like how he describes Lee and Confederacy in the light of wild evil men intent on only violence and destruction without any merit whatsoever. And to describe the CW simply as a revolt, similar to say the Watts riots, when it included such a large proportion of the country is to belittle the voice of 13 states and the memory of hundreds of thousands who gave their lives for what they thought a worthwhile cause.