PDA

View Full Version : Obama to take oath on Abe Lincoln's Bible




rational thinker
12-23-2008, 04:40 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6rM5EBT5iwVm1ccO0htD_DWip-w


"The president-elect is committed to holding an inauguration that celebrates America's unity, and the use of this historic Bible will provide a powerful connection to our common past and common heritage," Beliveau said.

Unity? Wasn't there a civil war during his presidency?

Mesogen
12-23-2008, 04:45 PM
Wasn't Lincoln an atheist? Or close to it?

Is this an accurate quote?


"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

nate895
12-23-2008, 04:46 PM
Ahh...Another reason to not like Mr. Obama, as if any of us needed a new reason. The man thinks he is the greatest POS to hit this planet since Jesus Christ, maybe Adam and Eve.

wizardwatson
12-23-2008, 04:46 PM
Lincoln was a tool.

torchbearer
12-23-2008, 04:46 PM
The war of nothern aggression.

The fate of our over-bearing central government was sealed in 1865.
The south should have fought until there were no humans left standing.

nate895
12-23-2008, 04:48 PM
The south should have fought until there were no humans left standing.

Lee said that to the former Confederate Governor of Texas a few months before his death.

Kotin
12-23-2008, 05:25 PM
lincoln was a tool.

+1776

nobody's_hero
12-23-2008, 05:43 PM
Well, considering that he doesn't intend to uphold his oath anyway . . . does it matter?

If anyone's going to get upset, it's probably God.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Liar, liar, pants on fire. I don't consider myself a devoutly religious man, but there is a part of me that hopes the Bible burns off his hand whenever he utters those words.

RideTheDirt
12-23-2008, 05:55 PM
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"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."

Racist tool

How ironic can it get?

garyallen59
12-23-2008, 05:56 PM
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"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."

Racist tool

How ironic can it get?

arrgh you beat me to it. :D

RSLudlum
12-23-2008, 06:35 PM
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"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."

Racist tool

How ironic can it get?



Lee said that to the former Confederate Governor of Texas a few months before his death.


Quite, quite ironic given the fact that Lee thought slavery was a "policital and moral evil" (as he stated in a letter to his wife in 1856)

nate895
12-23-2008, 07:05 PM
Quite, quite ironic given the fact that Lee thought slavery was a "policital and moral evil" (as he stated in a letter to his wife in 1856)

I have an internet copy of that letter I used for a project on Lee I did in the Eighth Grade. It pissed off the teacher. At the beginning of the project, I was a neocon wiretap, Gitmo-lover who ignored the fourth amendment, by the end I was well on my way to becoming a full-blown Constitutional secessionist.

raiha
12-23-2008, 11:06 PM
Uh oh!! it does not bode well swearing on the bible of a Whig, Central banking, Hamiltonian, syphilitic, mercury poisoned, long-armed, socially inept warmonger

Matt Collins
12-23-2008, 11:14 PM
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Obama/Lincoln-Obama.jpg

devil21
12-23-2008, 11:19 PM
A black man taking the Presidential Oath of Office on the bible of an historical atheist, after hearing a Christian-Zionist give the inaugural prayer.

I think I've seen everything now.

James Madison
12-24-2008, 12:13 AM
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"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."

Racist tool

How ironic can it get?

It's called symbolism, or ironic symbolism, at least. After all, look at how the media/government treats us--like we're a bunch of children. They know; we know; but do you think the average American knows? They're rubbing it in our faces and laughing at us as we blindly follow Obama to the slaughter. Just like all the occult symbolism throughout the western world, this is no different.

James Madison
12-24-2008, 12:14 AM
A black man taking the Presidential Oath of Office on the bible of an historical atheist, after hearing a Christian-Zionist give the inaugural prayer.

I think I've seen everything now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lincoln was deist?:confused:

libertarian4321
12-24-2008, 12:19 AM
The war of nothern aggression.

The fate of our over-bearing central government was sealed in 1865.
The south should have fought until there were no humans left standing.

Why? That makes no sense.

What is the point of getting slaughtered with no chance of winning? That's about as absurd as Hitler's willingness to fight until his country was completely destroyed- it doesn't accomplish anything but get millions slaughtered, many of them innocents.

nate895
12-24-2008, 12:21 AM
Why? That makes no sense.

What is the point of getting slaughtered with no chance of winning? That's about as absurd as Hitler's willingness to fight until his country was completely destroyed- it doesn't accomplish anything but get millions slaughtered, many of them innocents.

The Union, if the South would have chosen guerrilla warfare, would have given up eventually. It would have been a Vietnam-style bog down, except worse because Southerners are way better at fighting than the average Yankee.

James Madison
12-24-2008, 12:23 AM
The Union, if the South would have chosen guerrilla warfare, would have given up eventually. It would have been a Vietnam-style bog down, except worse because Southerners are way better at fighting than the average Yankee.

Absolutely. The Southerners were much better shots than their northern foes and knew how to fight guerrilla style combat...the Union would have eventually just given up.

devil21
12-24-2008, 12:34 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lincoln was deist?:confused:

Define "deist". Never heard that term before.

nate895
12-24-2008, 12:41 AM
Define "deist". Never heard that term before.

Deist is the belief in an abstract God that made the universe, but doesn't interfere in its workings. Contrast with theism, which believes that a God (or Gods) made the universe and are active participants in the events that go on in the universe.

James Madison
12-24-2008, 12:42 AM
Define "deist". Never heard that term before.

Hmm. A deist is someone who identifies that while a supreme being (i.e. God) does exist, it doesn't take an active role in the affairs of people. Since they would likely reject the heaven-hell dichotomy, their view of "god" isn't the Christian or Muslim equivalent. A lot of the founders were deists including: Jefferson (wrote the Declaration of Independence), Madison (wrote US Constiution), and Paine (author of Common Sense). If you wanted to learn more about deism, you should read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.

devil21
12-24-2008, 12:49 AM
Interesting responses. I've always equated people that don't believe in the "invisible hand of God" stuff as atheists, albeit not very dedicated ones. I'm not sure about your characterization of Lincoln as one (deist) but could be.

Bunch of Lincoln's quotes on religion so draw your own conclusion:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm

nate895
12-24-2008, 12:50 AM
A lot of the founders were deists including: Jefferson (wrote the Declaration of Independence), Madison (wrote US Constiution), and Paine (author of Common Sense). If you wanted to learn more about deism, you should read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.

Go to off topic where the rumors as far as Jefferson are concerned are shown to be false.

James Madison
12-24-2008, 12:53 AM
Go to off topic where the rumors as far as Jefferson are concerned are shown to be false.

Really? I'll have to check that out.

anaconda
12-24-2008, 05:35 AM
Lincoln and Obama both defile the Constitution. Perfect choice, Barky...

Kevin_Kennedy
12-24-2008, 06:42 AM
At least he's essentially telling us the truth about his intentions, that he plans to follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln and completely ignore the Constitution.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
12-24-2008, 07:01 AM
"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people
designed to make of their victory,
there would have been no surrender at
Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me.
Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
I would have preferred to die at Appomattox
with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E. Lee to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (D-Texas), 1870

nobody's_hero
12-24-2008, 08:15 AM
"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people
designed to make of their victory,
there would have been no surrender at
Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me.
Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
I would have preferred to die at Appomattox
with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E. Lee to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (D-Texas), 1870

Was he referring to Sherman's 'march to the sea' here?

I think the South blundered lots of opportunities by not burning everything in their wake when they moved up to Pennsylvania. They fought too much like gentlemen. The nature of the Confederate fighting was too defensive in general.

Then Sherman came down to Georgia, and didn't play fair at all. Burning wheat fields, cotton fields, ripping up rails, burning Atlanta.

I think that might be what Lee was referring to. I don't know enough about the man though—might be interesting to read about.

RonPaulFanInGA
12-24-2008, 08:23 AM
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"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."

Racist tool

How ironic can it get?

Abe Lincoln: American history's most beloved white supremacist.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
12-24-2008, 08:23 AM
It wasn't just Sherman that took on tactics of total war towards the people of the south. It was pretty widespread. I would suspect that what he had to say there had little, if anything, to do with Sherman or any other atrocities during war time. I would rather suspect that he was making reference to reconstruction and the general behavior of the federal government after the hostilities had ceased.

RonPaulFanInGA
12-24-2008, 08:30 AM
A black man taking the Presidential Oath of Office on the bible of an historical atheist, after hearing a Christian-Zionist give the inaugural prayer.

I think I've seen everything now.

I'm not sure you could exactly call him an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Religious_and_philosophical_belief s

There seems to be a lot of strange, revisionist history going on trying to make Lincoln into a hero, an atheist and even a homosexual.

torchbearer
12-24-2008, 01:58 PM
I'm not sure you could exactly call him an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Religious_and_philosophical_belief s

There seems to be a lot of strange, revisionist history going on trying to make Lincoln into a hero, an atheist and even a homosexual.

Let's just say he was very intimate with a couple of his male friends... doesn't mean he had penetration...
I don't know how men related to each other at that time.. but had a friend of mine wrote some of those same letters to me... i'd have to sit down and have a serious talk with them.

nate895
12-24-2008, 02:19 PM
Was he referring to Sherman's 'march to the sea' here?

I think the South blundered lots of opportunities by not burning everything in their wake when they moved up to Pennsylvania. They fought too much like gentlemen. The nature of the Confederate fighting was too defensive in general.

Then Sherman came down to Georgia, and didn't play fair at all. Burning wheat fields, cotton fields, ripping up rails, burning Atlanta.

I think that might be what Lee was referring to. I don't know enough about the man though—might be interesting to read about.

That kind of warfare hadn't even been thought of before Sherman. That was something that barbarians did a thousand years or more ago, not something that civilized people did to each other. What has been the result of Sherman's march? Nothing but death and destruction for millions of innocents in wars that cover the entirety of the twenty first century. War went from an army-on-army gentleman's fight, to a population-on-population barbaric show of force.

Edit: I don't believe he was referring the march to the sea, Lee knew about that I presume when he surrendered. I believe the horrors of reconstruction where the South was subjugated, elections were rigged, and racial hatred started to occur for the first time on a wide scale in the South were what Lee was referring to.

nodope0695
12-24-2008, 02:22 PM
You mean not on a Koran? Hmmm....Muslams believe it is a death sentance to leave the faith, therefore will a contract be placed on Barack Hussain Obama's head by fundamental Islamists? He was a Muslam when he went to school in Indonesia. He's takin' a helluva risk, wouldn't you think?:rolleyes:

torchbearer
12-24-2008, 02:24 PM
You mean not on a Koran? Hmmm....Muslams believe it is a death sentance to leave the faith, therefore will a contract be placed on Barack Hussain Obama's head by fundamental Islamists? He was a Muslam when he went to school in Indonesia. He's takin' a helluva risk, wouldn't you think?:rolleyes:

It's ok for an interloper to pretend as a cover... as long as his intentions is to furthur Jihad against infedels.

BlackTerrel
12-24-2008, 03:20 PM
The war of nothern aggression.

The fate of our over-bearing central government was sealed in 1865.
The south should have fought until there were no humans left standing.

Great idea. They should've killed millions more for the great Southern cause! What was the great Southern cause again?

BlackTerrel
12-24-2008, 03:22 PM
You mean not on a Koran? Hmmm....Muslams believe it is a death sentance to leave the faith, therefore will a contract be placed on Barack Hussain Obama's head by fundamental Islamists? He was a Muslam when he went to school in Indonesia. He's takin' a helluva risk, wouldn't you think?:rolleyes:

First of all Obama was never a Muslim.

Second of all, you don't think millions of Muslims want Bush dead. It's not that easy...

nate895
12-24-2008, 03:25 PM
Great idea. They should've killed millions more for the great Southern cause! What was the great Southern cause again?

Small government with low taxes.

Tell me: why would group of people looking to defend slavery forever more elect a gradualist abolitionist as their President? How would they raise an army of 1,000,000 (including 90,000-200,000 blacks) men, almost every single last one of them is worse off because of slavery? Also, why would they be looking to defend slavery from a group of people whose plank on slavery is:


4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

DeadheadForPaul
12-24-2008, 03:57 PM
Go to off topic where the rumors as far as Jefferson are concerned are shown to be false.

Not true. Jefferson was either a Deist or Unitarian.

He explicitly rejected the virgin birth, Jesus as the son of God, the Trinity, and the resurrection. He regarded much of the New Testament as a fabrication

"From his careful study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.[62] He therefore regarded much of the New Testament as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".[64] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", [65] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors", describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".[65] He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[66] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved."

constituent
12-24-2008, 04:04 PM
"...and now on to Chicago!"

literatim
12-24-2008, 04:10 PM
Not true. Jefferson was either a Deist or Unitarian.

Thomas Jefferson found the accusations that he was a deist insulting.

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attatched to His doctrines in preference to all others." Thomas Jefferson letter to Rush, 1803.

Mesogen
12-24-2008, 10:32 PM
It's funny that people swear oaths on Bibles since the Bible says to never swear oaths.

torchbearer
12-24-2008, 10:56 PM
It's funny that people swear oaths on Bibles since the Bible says to never swear oaths.

I was thinking it was more of not cursing someone in god's name. (as in what people do with voodoo and such... a common practice of the earlier religions)
But maybe you are talking about another part of the bible?

Aratus
12-25-2008, 11:33 AM
The Union, if the South would have chosen guerrilla warfare, would have given up eventually. It would have been a Vietnam-style bog down, except worse because Southerners are way better at fighting than the average Yankee.

the civil war had instances of guerrilla war equal to 'nam at its height. missouri during
and kansas before. if we have a hamiltonian central gov't now, lets blame poor andy johnson
insted of dithering weak potus buchanan. the tennessee johnson style was to get all protagonists
around a big round table and LITERALLY knock heads together. "kynge andy the second" was
an auld hickory man. ~~~the war became desperate, inflationary on both sides, destructive of
habeas corpus on both sides, and overly looooooooooooooooooooooooong. we can debate within
the politics of each capitol city the stature of each president, and both tended to be lightyears
beyond and above their followers, and their detractors in each city were comprised of the better
and worst citizens, thusly. the civil war was fought to standstill razor's edge, and advantages
were [a.] telegraph wires [b.] rail system and [c.] northern wheat trumps southern cotton as 9/10th of
each vounteer army were dead or badly wounded by years four and five in the conflict. i just now am into
going into how under-rated andrew johnson is as a potus, he who disbands for the most part on drill parade
in the summer of 1865 the grand army under his command. lets go into greenbacks and southern script.
the best and worst decision of "kynge andy" was the states under his restoration plan repudiating
all southern debts and scripts. greenbacks were not often backed by heavy metals. here, i and TW were
almost debating this all when looking at g.w bush's legacy verses harding, hoover and grant ...and KYNGE ANDY II
---when not legal tender, southern paper script had nary a legal tether most metalurgy... so i go onto bi-metalism

Aratus
12-25-2008, 11:40 AM
jefferson's own personal koran recently had this dude in the house being sworn in on the same

Mesogen
12-25-2008, 12:24 PM
I was thinking it was more of not cursing someone in god's name. (as in what people do with voodoo and such... a common practice of the earlier religions)
But maybe you are talking about another part of the bible?

Matthew 5:33-37 "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Do not swear oaths by god ("so help me god") or by the earth or by Jerusalem or by your head. Just say yes or no. Anything beyond this is evil.

nobody's_hero
12-25-2008, 12:29 PM
So, Obama should just say, "Nope, I will not follow the Constitution."

And then do a magic show or something for the millions of sheep who will be going to Washington for the inauguration ceremony.

Mesogen
12-25-2008, 12:47 PM
So, Obama should just say, "Nope, I will not follow the Constitution."

And then do a magic show or something for the millions of sheep who will be going to Washington for the inauguration ceremony.

A REAL Christian would say that he does not swear oaths because his lord Jesus Christ told him it was evil.

He should get the Chief Justice to ask him "Will you protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?"

"Yes."


If he wanted to follow the teachings of Jesus.

libertarian4321
12-26-2008, 04:31 PM
The Union, if the South would have chosen guerrilla warfare, would have given up eventually. It would have been a Vietnam-style bog down, except worse because Southerners are way better at fighting than the average Yankee.

First, the original poster said nothing about carrying on guerrilla warfare, he said they should fight until no one is left alive- that implies fighting battles, not carrying on low intensity conflict.

Another point- the "southerners are better at fighting" theory was proposed by the south as a way to overcome the North's advantage in manpower, arms, and industry early in the war.

Obviously, it didn't work that way.

The idea that southerners would fight better because they were more likely to be country boys didn't really pan out, because in Civil War style fighting, skill with a rifle/musket isn't of much use because of the close order battle that typified the era.

The "guerrilla warfare" bit probably wouldn't have worked, even if they had had the will to try. By 1865, the south was an economic disaster- it had no money, little industry, almost no able bodied men not already in the military, and couldn't feed itself. Most of the people were sick of war, and likely wouldn't have supported any form of continuance of the war.

nate895
12-26-2008, 04:48 PM
First, the original poster said nothing about carrying on guerrilla warfare, he said they should fight until no one is left alive- that implies fighting battles, not carrying on low intensity conflict.

Another point- the "southerners are better at fighting" theory was proposed by the south as a way to overcome the North's advantage in manpower, arms, and industry early in the war.

Obviously, it didn't work that way.

The idea that southerners would fight better because they were more likely to be country boys didn't really pan out, because in Civil War style fighting, skill with a rifle/musket isn't of much use because of the close order battle that typified the era.





More Yankees died than Southerners, 258,000 Southerners to 360,000 Yankees is the approximate number.

Also, the South won more battles than the Union, and they were almost always outnumbered. The problem was that they were so outnumbered that the South would have had to be more than twice as good as the North from supply advantages.

As far as the original poster, I was simply citing the merits to fighting on and not having to see every man, woman, and child slaughtered if they did. Even if they would have, there is the old saying from Patrick Henry "Give me liberty, or give me death."


The "guerrilla warfare" bit probably wouldn't have worked, even if they had had the will to try. By 1865, the south was an economic disaster- it had no money, little industry, almost no able bodied men not already in the military, and couldn't feed itself. Most of the people were sick of war, and likely wouldn't have supported any form of continuance of the war.

Doubtful. The populous was hungry, but still supported the war as much as ever. They supported the fight that old guerrillas put up in the West for years, such as Jesse James (a relative of mine). In the Northern tradition, he is nothing more than a bandit out to make a buck, in the Southern (plus my familial) tradition, he is a folk hero who wanted to beat the Yankees so bad he couldn't stop. Truth is probably somewhere in between, but the point is that the South supported them. The only reason why they didn't give supplies to the army at the end of the war was there was none to give. Besides, guerrilla wars do not require the support of the population until near the final phase, which probably would not have needed to be reached. The North was more sick of the war, and if the Southern rebels could have held out until 1868 and the Presidential election, the North (which also had many so-called Copperheads in it) would have voted for a peace candidate, if they hadn't already given up by the midterm elections of 1866.

The South was so much behind the war that even though the Confederacy didn't have a very large draft effort, they still got a proportional amount of men to fight for them as the Yankees did. Support for the Confederacy still remains relatively strong in the South, even if they are misguided in the application of their principles.

libertarian4321
12-26-2008, 05:04 PM
More Yankees died than Southerners, 258,000 Southerners to 360,000 Yankees is the approximate number.

Also, the South won more battles than the Union, and they were almost always outnumbered. The problem was that they were so outnumbered that the South would have had to be more than twice as good as the North from supply advantages.



Most of the war was fought in the South. In other words, the confederates were on the defensive. One would always expect to take higher casualties on the offensive, especially when attacking cities, forts, and other fortified positions (the south did almost no attacking against fortifications).

I don't know how "the south won more battles", unless you only count selective (well known) battles, mostly from '61-'63. If you count all the hundreds of battles in the war, the south won less, and won almost none in the last 2 years of the war.

nate895
12-26-2008, 05:43 PM
Most of the war was fought in the South. In other words, the confederates were on the defensive. One would always expect to take higher casualties on the offensive, especially when attacking cities, forts, and other fortified positions (the south did almost no attacking against fortifications).

I don't know how "the south won more battles", unless you only count selective (well known) battles, mostly from '61-'63. If you count all the hundreds of battles in the war, the south won less, and won almost none in the last 2 years of the war.

The South did win many more battles, and many were on the attack, they just didn't them well enough and didn't take good enough advantage of the victories they won.

Let's just look at two battles, with one battle with each side on the defensive equally:

Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 11-15, 1862:
Force Ratio: CSA: ~72,000-USA:~114,000
Casualty Ratio CSA: 5,377-USA 12,653
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, July 1-3, 1863:
Force Ratio: CSA: 71,699-USA 93,921
Casualty Ratio: CSA: 23,271-USA 23,055

Over similar time frames, and similarly advantageous defensive positions (I have been to both battlefields, and I'd argue that Union positions at Gettysburg were arguably naturally better), the Southerners were able to equal Union casualties at Gettysburg, and that is after some rather bad generalship on the part of General Lee. Whereas, the Yankees were only able to take up to two-to-one at Fredericksburg with many more men than the South, while the South was outnumbered at Gettysburg.

The_Orlonater
12-26-2008, 09:09 PM
Lincoln sucked, he was right about Christianity though.

On a goofy side note, does anybody else like Civil war beardS?

Thrashertm
12-27-2008, 01:07 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6rM5EBT5iwVm1ccO0htD_DWip-w



Unity? Wasn't there a civil war during his presidency?

He's also going to take a train from Illinois to DC supposedly, following the route that Lincoln took.

He's really trying to assume Lincoln's mantle, one of the greatest tyrants this country has ever seen. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant - http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo16.html

nate895
12-27-2008, 01:10 AM
Lincoln sucked, he was right about Christianity though.

On a goofy side note, does anybody else like Civil war beardS?

Notice how the really bad tyrants tend to have similar feelings about religion? Strange indeed, my friend, or could it just be something more tangible that draws them to crush it wherever it lies.

AutoDas
12-27-2008, 01:51 AM
Notice how the really bad tyrants tend to have similar feelings about religion? Strange indeed, my friend, or could it just be something more tangible that draws them to crush it wherever it lies.

Yup. They always believe that God is on their side. And if you don't believe the same religion as them, you'll be lined up against the wall.

Aratus
12-27-2008, 09:41 AM
oh lets tweek stanton's civil war beard as he is so near to the clicking telegraph keyes...
lets opinion on how INDISPENSIBLE to the northern war effort the lofty leggy potus was...
lets say war of attrition and one of the reasons why gen'l grant often didst drink too much...
presuming stanton NOT to be the northern mastermind who wins the war horridly bloodily and
and if we all neatly do presume both of lincoln's veeps were never torridly alcoholically blitzoid inclined
& are reasonably sober, if we wade thru a string of auld harper's weekly without harping on a post-1865 bloody
shirt too often, as we EXAMINE gettysburg down to each witness tree thusly... lets look at this. our america
in 1865 was war-weary... 1/3 of most draftable adult males in the south were dead, and a greater
likewise sum of gold star mothers lived in the north, living past the babes they all weened...
lets achingly think of the timrod prosepoem almost sounding like yeats well long before
all those memorials above and below ... the AULD mason dixon lyne... southern clime
and northern clime... angst ridden... are we all thusly ONE nation or two most
patchwork quilt DIVIDED? so now is it a moot point WHICH potus of our divi-crat~ted up
nation hath the taller stature? if both ruled all but by half, for the war cuts loose as a weak wimp
of a potus stares at something he cannot resolve neatly? oh plutocracy and democracy and oligarchy and all
that the season'd politico auld hickory instincts of andrew johnson took him to the epi-center of...???

Aratus
12-27-2008, 09:59 AM
civil war trivia factoid and that there bible that in 1861 and/or 1865 that honest abe swore in on... didst hannibal hamlin in 1861,march predictably take his own bible with him, whereas kynge andy didst travel to d.c lightly in february/march of 1865... and if he wuz buzzed upon a ceriamony, methinks it was honest abe's own version of kyme james that was kissed by the TEAM of victors over and after the rout of a most democratic civil war bearded gen'l??? ...an' if it was the same bible in 1861 & 1865, what are the odds BOTH veeps laid a hand on the same... and if so WHICH side of the same didst humble populist tailor kiss? is obama thusly to lay his hand on the side honest abe kissed and/or kynge andy? i sorta wonder for we know the dude whose prose*poem about plutocrats occasion'd a quip speedily about roman councils, an heir to augustus, stables, and auld rome was ...toshed, had slightly imbibed... and was curing hhhhissss~self from a fever via hair of the dog... an' given that pattent medicines were un-regulated, was our new veep STONED in 1865 not whiskey~drunk? the thoughts of restoration & reconstruction an' all events from january of 1865 to january of 1870... indeedy we must think anodyne, nostrum, rosterum and patent medicine most medicinal, for how else to explain the stump thumping rant...

Aratus
12-27-2008, 10:08 AM
On a goofy side note, does anybody else like Civil war beardS?


O! smith brothers cough drop boxes, yes...! even though its reet & neat
that bill mckinley is the next clean shaven potus after andy johnson...:rolleyes:

libertarian4321
01-03-2009, 03:03 AM
The South did win many more battles, and many were on the attack, they just didn't them well enough and didn't take good enough advantage of the victories they won.

That's demonstrably not true.

The South may have won more of the well known battles, especially early in the war, but if you look at all battles, the south lost more battles than it won in every year (even 1861 and 1862, when the South was having its best luck).

Late in the war ('64 and '65), the North was kicking the south all over the map- the north piling up win after win after win after win.

Given that the south was utterly defeated, this shouldn't really come as a surprise to you.

If you want to start counting, here is a decent PARTIAL list of battles (it doesn't include many of the very small ones- and lumps Sherman's March to the Sea as one battle- when in fact, it was several battles- all won by the North, of course):

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



Let's just look at two battles, with one battle with each side on the defensive equally:

Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 11-15, 1862:
Force Ratio: CSA: ~72,000-USA:~114,000
Casualty Ratio CSA: 5,377-USA 12,653
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, July 1-3, 1863:
Force Ratio: CSA: 71,699-USA 93,921
Casualty Ratio: CSA: 23,271-USA 23,055

Over similar time frames, and similarly advantageous defensive positions (I have been to both battlefields, and I'd argue that Union positions at Gettysburg were arguably naturally better), the Southerners were able to equal Union casualties at Gettysburg, and that is after some rather bad generalship on the part of General Lee. Whereas, the Yankees were only able to take up to two-to-one at Fredericksburg with many more men than the South, while the South was outnumbered at Gettysburg.

There are a lot of reasons you may have varying casualty numbers in different battles. Consider the possibility, in the examples you gave, that the confederates had better leadership at Fredericksburg? Lee vs. Burnside? C'mon, give me a break. Thats like having the Patriots play the Giants, with Tom Brady at QB for the Patriots, and Richard Simmons (of "Sweatin' to the Oldies" fame) at QB for the Giants, then claiming the Patriots were inherently superior because they won the game. :) Hell, Simmons would probably do better as a General than Burnside did.

However, I don't know of any serious historian who thinks the southern soldier was "inherently superior" to those in the north. You may find that stuff in old movies, though.

nate895
01-03-2009, 03:57 PM
That's demonstrably not true.

The South may have won more of the well known battles, especially early in the war, but if you look at all battles, the south lost more battles than it won in every year (even 1861 and 1862, when the South was having its best luck).

Late in the war ('64 and '65), the North was kicking the south all over the map- the north piling up win after win after win after win.

Given that the south was utterly defeated, this shouldn't really come as a surprise to you.

If you want to start counting, here is a decent PARTIAL list of battles (it doesn't include many of the very small ones- and lumps Sherman's March to the Sea as one battle- when in fact, it was several battles- all won by the North, of course):

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

Well, of those battles listed, 4 were counted as Confederate victories, 5 Union, one inconclusive. One counted in the Union column was Sharpsburg (AKA Antietam), and that was technically a Southern victory because they held the field at the end of the day, and withdrew of their own accord. The inconclusive battle was Spotsylvania, and that was pretty much a Confederate victory because it left Grant's army unable to move for some time.


There are a lot of reasons you may have varying casualty numbers in different battles. Consider the possibility, in the examples you gave, that the confederates had better leadership at Fredericksburg? Lee vs. Burnside? C'mon, give me a break. Thats like having the Patriots play the Giants, with Tom Brady at QB for the Patriots, and Richard Simmons (of "Sweatin' to the Oldies" fame) at QB for the Giants, then claiming the Patriots were inherently superior because they won the game. Hell, Simmons would probably do better as a General than Burnside did.

Exactly my point. There was so little talent in the Yankee Army. Grant was a person who simply applied force, and the only really good general as far as strategy is concerned in the Yankee ranks, IMO, was Sherman, and he has his reputation stained by inventing a whole new form of warfare that raped the South into submission. He wasn't an honorable officer, but rather a particularly intelligent monster.

raiha
01-03-2009, 04:04 PM
I like Jeb Stuart's beard and the feather in his hat. I wish men wore wonderful flamboyant feathers in their caps these days. Peter Schiff might get more attention if he started wearing a Stuart hat.
I hate Abraham Lincoln's beard and the ugly face it sits on but i adore Robert E. Lee's beard and the handsome noble face that lies under it.

mrsat_98
01-04-2009, 08:29 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6rM5EBT5iwVm1ccO0htD_DWip-w



Unity? Wasn't there a civil war during his presidency?

Hopefully he will go to the theatre afterwards !!!!

xd9fan
01-05-2009, 01:53 AM
thats cool....If I was from ILL I would do something like that

Zapem
01-05-2009, 04:08 AM
Well, considering that he doesn't intend to uphold his oath anyway . . . does it matter?

If anyone's going to get upset, it's probably God.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Liar, liar, pants on fire. I don't consider myself a devoutly religious man, but there is a part of me that hopes the Bible burns off his hand whenever he utters those words.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, SO HELP ME GOD.

Let's see if he adds the "so help me God" part.