Which President Was Worse -- Lincoln or Obama?

How about the Museum of the Confederacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13826444

They must be in on the conspiracy too, right?

OK, the CWG, McPherson, and now the MOC.



OK, please stop. My sides are hurting.

I'll let you get back to the stirring epics by Rio Honde Community College and the nice fellows at the Sons of the Confederate Veterans then. They certainly are beyond reproach. I particularly liked the one by the High School teacher who also coaches the football team.

Oh, and the nice gentleman you claim supports your viewpoint on that super DVD that you assure me says some really important stuff. You know, by the history professor without an actual post-graduate degree.

I'll just settle for the prize winning historians (the last one had a nice shiny pulitzer), the groups that actually run the museums, and all the actual journals.

But keep laughing.

You might convince yourself people are laughing with you.

Instead of at you.

Congratulations, Demi! You did win one battle tonight.

The Lexington, VA city council voted 4-1 to ban the Confederate flag from flying on lamp posts at the Lee-Jackson Day parade.

Now watch Lexington's tourism dry up and blow away in the midst of a recession.

Love Lexington. Beautiful country, friendly people, the best drive in theatre in the country, and a lovely small town atmosphere. Smart of them not to officially put up Confederate battle flags, just as smart of them not to hassle individuals who want to do so.

Oh, here's another win from a while back, when the controversy made national headlines when a Virginia school book included information on 'thousands of black confederate soldiers.'

The author, another one of these non-degreed historians, said she cited internet research, almost all of it by the SCV.

A later review of the book found over a dozen errors, including when America joined WWI and the number of states in the Confederacy.

The state then removed approval of the textbook, and rewrote the vetting process (there's that word again) so such blatant errors couldn't be introduced again.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/03/va-yanks-approval-history-text-factual-errors

I like winning. Winning is fun. You neo-confederates should try it some time.

Link spamming, ignoring professional experts on the subject, propping up arguments with the personal websites of no name dipshits. Holy shit! Muad's no different than a god dammed conspiracy theorist.

You're trying to prop up your position with links to Angelfire sites, motherfucking Angelfire! Think about how foolish and stupid that makes your position look.

On the plus side, the ghetto confederate apologist websites gave me a nostalgia trip back to the days before cascading style sheets.

This is always what it comes down with Muad. There isn't a shred of contemporary evidence to back of any of his silly claims, but there sure is this wide ranging conspiracy to keep his "truth" down.

Well, there is some evidence. The type that when a SCV guy sees it he shouts 'See, I was right!' As opposed to a historian, who looks further into it to see if it is what it appears to be.

There 2 known examples of large numbers of blacks serving in the Confederacy. One is the account of Lewis Steiner in Frederick, Maryland. This one is cited by several of the SCV sources:

4. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."


What is interesting is what is left out of the statement:
"The fact was patent, and rather interesting, in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for national defense.'

Another interesting part comes later in that same day's diary entry, which includes:
"A drunken, bloated blackguard on horseback, for instance, with the badge of a Major-General on his collar, understood to be one Howell Cobb, former Secretary of the United States treasury, on passing the house of a prominent sympathizer of the rebellion, removed his hat, in answer to the waving of handkerchiefs, and called on "his boys" to give three cheers."

The account can be read here:
http://www.edinborough.com/Learn/cw_nurses/Steiner.PDF

Why is this relevant? Cobb is on record as violently opposing the concept of the armed black soldier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howell_Cobb

Is this just another case of Maud's conspiracy theory, that the leaders of the Confederacy didn't know who was in their own armies? Pretty incredible, considering Cobb was riding through at the same time as Steiner's account, and was probably the commander of that group.

Or is it more likely that Steiner simply didn't know what he was looking at, especially in context that neither the Confederates or the support personnel had an established uniform? And that even he himself records that the Rebel soldiers were 'horrified' by the idea.

What's more, these men then went to fight the battle of Antietam, and there's no historical record of any black confederates fighting there in the hundreds of diaries and newspaper articles on the subject.

Another case - the Louisiana native guards. There's a famous picture sold by neo-confederates of this group of armed black confederate soldiers. Problem is, it's a fake, as clearly denoted here:
http://www.retouchinghistory.org/

The real picture includes a Union officer, as these were Union soldiers, and indeed were used in propaganda posters to that affect. Someone removed the Union officer and added a caption stating they were Confederates. Probably a nice southern school teacher who belongs to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The Native Guard were themselves the topic of a book by historian James Hollandsworth. They were formed as Confederate militia as a publicity move, were never allowed to fight. They were disbanded in 1862 by a state order which indicated only whites were allowed to serve in the Louisiana militia. Some of their members were later mustered into the Union Native Guards, and then did fight - against the Confederacy.

http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/truth-lies-and-a-black-confederate-soldiers-hoax/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Louisiana_Native_Guard_(CSA)

I think there's good evidence that some blacks fought for the Confederacy. Just not in nearly the numbers described by Maud (which would be 4 divisions) and were the exception rather than the rule. It certainly doesn't justify the institutions of the Confederacy as Maud and his friends in the SCV contend. They conflate the accounts, exaggerate them as much as possible, all to prove a political point. Almost all historians give that the credibility it deserves.

How do you deny the quote by Frederick Douglas?

Personally, I find it more disturbing that four or five members here defend the Confederate States of America and the cause of slavery society so vehemently than someone messing up the quote function.

Quote complaints are right up there will the "spellcheck police".

The war's primary cause was slavery. I'll not deny that. But, when their backs were against the wall, the wheels started turning. Shortly before the fall of Richmond, General Lee finally convinced the government to allow slaves to serve in exchange for their freedom.

In fact, the CSA did something it'd take the USA another 90 years to do. The Army of Northern Virginia had integrated units.


This post was spitefully crafted just for you on my iPhone.

I don't deny that.

Because I remember the proposal right before the end of the war to reward slaves for fighting.

The south was desperate enough to try anything at that point.

But that is a staggeringly huge far cry from the claim that "10% of the Confederate Army was black"

A much further cry from the idea that the south was going to free and educate their former slaves which is flat out ridiculous.

Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery.

Obama slapped the shackles of slavery back on them in the form of federal government entitlements and handouts.

But look at what a wonderful job He's doing for them!

Hope and chains!

Regardless, they'll still be showing up at the polls for Him in droves come 2012. While nobody is suggesting they would support a GOP candidate, but they will actually show up to the polls to keep Him in power (or is it still rule?). Marion Barry and Ray Nagin agree!

Clearly we need more laws to force evil businesses to be fair and hire black people.

We also need to extend safety nets for the less fortunate.

Well, Obama has not turned the US military on American citizens yet. Lincoln was the type to make war on civilians because of their government, to burn and starve people out of house and home. The burned official buildings in Atlanta, but they burned Columbia,SC to the ground sparing nothing and left those people to die. That won't ever be forgotten and the fact that the Federal government is still treating SC like crap doesn't help. The people of SC came up with 2 billion dollars to match federal dollars so that they would no longer be America's dumping ground for nuclear waste. Everything was going to the Yucca site in the middle of the desert, then Obama pulled the plug on that and I think SC should get its money back. People in SC still hate the federal government with good reason.

Who do you think you are, Lionel Richie?

Please explain, because I'm seriously not getting why THAT is a negative. :confused:

Comments on this post
Beck disagrees I defend the CSA because it deserved to exist then, and deserves to exist now.

How do you figure that?

States rights as in them having any equal to or superior to the federal govt. was dead already long before the U.S. Civil War thanks to Supreme Court rulings.

States rights in a similar manner was very much dead now.

And the south had few problems remaining part of the union as long as pro Southern presidents (like Pierce and Buchanan) were there to support them.

But the first time a president gets elected that is directly hostile to slavery is elected they turn and run like fearful children.

All because they are so scared of having to live alongside the blacks.

What part of this do you not understand?

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.
---Abrama Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

You might want to check your facts on that one too. The Northern States had amended their state constitutions well before the war to prevent blacks from moving within their borders. That's why the Underground Railroad had to take them to Canada, and that's why the UG had to hide them during their passage through the Northern states.

Their were many areas in the South where the free black population outnumbered the slave population. IIRC New Orleans was one of them.

Even teaching history backwards, you should know that.

I think the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion might be well vetted.

I'm tired of debating this. Bottom line is: Lincoln saved the South from itself.

No he didn't.

He saved the Union.

In a purely geographical sense.

It's my understanding that Lincoln changed his views. That's part of what was so great about him.

Once Lincoln's colonization views became a bit more common knowledge, some of the "Lincoln scholars" started trying to claim that. DiLorenzo and some others have produced some pretty damning evidence that pretty much indicates that he maintained his colonization views right up to his death.

[wyt=Thomas DiLorenzo on Lincoln - C-SPAN Q&A]nbFty9nZUac[/wyt]

And you wonder why the Southern States rebelled and left the Union. Their rights were being stripped away by a federal government that continued to grow in power, which was not the intention of the founding fathers and was, in itself, unconstitutional.

Thanks to Lincoln. And all the more reason for the states to rebel against the tyrannical Federal government now!