Courtesy of the gift that keeps on giving:
Yup, it’s heritage, not history.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Courtesy of the gift that keeps on giving:
Yup, it’s heritage, not history.
Crossroads 
They should place this on a bronze tablet at the base of the new Confederate Flag south of Richmond.
You beat me to it. I was just starting a response to this post.
Words fail me.
Just as education apparently failed Mr. Heisler.
Classic “pick your evidence to fit your rant and ignore everything else that contradicts it”….. Do any of these people ever read the various acts of secession written in 1861, or are they only familiar with the post-war confederate apologia?
Anybody missing a pet ostrich?
My browser provides automatic spell checking. Who is this loon?
So, other errors aside, his argument is that the self-defined slave states got angry when the free states had more political power. His conclusion? Clearly not about slavery.
Well that’s just genius… So close, and yet so, so far.
I thought something along those lines, too. He’s got a real kernel of reality in there, with the collapse of slave power being a core, underlying factor in the growing support for secession. But he blows right past it in the rush to, um, not about slavery!
I’ve long said that secession was not about opposition to a strong national government. It was about opposition to any national government that the slave states and their allies, the northern Democrats, did not control. It wasn’t just the free states, existing and future, that were the problem. The slave states had finally pushed many Northern Democrats too far, finally even losing Stephen Douglas over Lecompton.
“My way or the highway” is not an effective stance for a political party. Something our modern political parties could to learn.
A good read on that is William Lee Miller’s “Arguing About Slavery” about the Gag Rule crisis when the House of Representatives effectively read the Petition Clause out of the First Amendment for nearly a decade. (It also includes a wonderful mini-biography of John Quincy Adams)
Now they’re just making stuff up! In addition to other grievous errors, he’s totally left out the fact that the South was allowed to count 3/5 of its human “property” as population, which gave them an advantage in the House they otherwise wouldn’t have had. It would seem the real lost cause here is education.
The debate in the Constitutional Convention is instructive. Delegates who opposed the slave state demand to count slaves as persons for the census,etc. called the slave states on the hypocrisy of: are they property or are they people? but they needed them for ratification so the compromise was worked outl
Exactly! I also find it interesting that when this issue arose previously, with the Articles of Confederation, the South wanted slaves to count for less, not more, for the purposes of tax distribution; the South wanted 1/2 and the North 3/4 at that time. Whether slaves were considered people or property depended chiefly on what each section stood to gain or lose.
Looks like another guy that is upset that history doesn’t prove his beliefs without some serious cherry-picking and spelling errors.
If Mr. Heisler was in my class, he’d flunk. Some history teacher somewhere in his past really fell down on the job.
With all due respect to Mr. Heisler, I have seen some of the stuff he puts on FB and I have a feeling he may not be firing on all 8 cylinders of no choice of his own. However, I am sure those who are firing on all 8 on SHPG will agree with his statement which is the sad part.
Let’s just face the facts here folks…..we’re all a little bit dumber having read this.
Alex Trebek would nail this guy.
He lied about Missouri’s rejection. It didn’t happen. Maine joined in right after to keep the “balance of power”.
[Removal of profane language]
It had not a thing to do with slaves and slavery. Lincoln said he would never fight over slavery, and he could have ended slavery when he took office in 1861, why didn’t he. Why not 1862?
Only after 2-1/2 years of war, a war he started, and a war that was not going as well as he wanted did he scheme with his heathen associates and decide a strategy to release of the slaves,hoping to get new manpower, and hopefully the slaves would harm the South.
[Removal of more profane language]
Jerry’s language has become so profane and obscene that I’ve removed it. Besides, it’s better to answer the question within.
Of course secession had something to do with slavery, and without secession there’s no war. Secessionists made painfully clear that their primary goal in advocating secession was to protect slavery. Are you calling the very people you worship liars? Are you telling us that they didn’t know what they said or meant?
Lincoln made it very clear that his conception of his public duty was to preserve the union and put down the rebellion. He also made it clear that he could only strike against slavery had he constitutional warrant to do so, and he found that warrant in his interpretation of the war powers of the president. Thus military necessity shaped what he could and could not do.
Lincoln simply could not have ended slavery unilaterally in 1861. That, indeed, would make him a tyrant. He could not do so constitutionally and he would not do so politically. However, he did recommend measures in 1861 and 1862 looking to the graduate elimination of slavery, something you overlook.
You might address your ineptitude with math. The war started in April 1861, and the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863. That’s not 2 1/2 years.
Once you address these facts, we can discuss the rest of your rant. But no bad language, Jerry. You set a poor example for your fellow Flaggers.