Posted on 04/27/2004 6:28:54 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:28:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Saddam Hussein's devilish practice of using human shields isn't exactly new. It was pioneered by an American, in fact, during the last year of the Civil War.
"Your officers, now in my hands, will be placed by me under your fire, as an act of retaliation," Union departmental commander Gen. John G. Foster wrote his Southern counterpart in an edict, and with that a sordid new standard was set in the conduct of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsleader.com ...
Actually it was Ft. Donelson, and its fall was as much a result of the incompetence of the commanders as any action by Grant. As "too many cooks spoil the broth", too many Generals can ruin a military force. John Floyd was a political appointment who had been Secretary of War under Buchanan and feared execution for transferring arms and munitions to Southern forts during his term of office. Gideon Pillow was an incompetent old fool who had been a General in the Mexican war, and the two of them fled the Fort further demoralizing the troops and leaving command in the hands of General Simon B. Buckner, an old friend Grant's who thought he would get favorable terms from his old comarde-in-arms. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way.
Fort Henry, which fell a couple of weeks before Donelson, was on the Tennessee River and was poorly sited, poorly constructed, and poorly fortified, succumbed after several hours of naval bombardment from gunboats of Captain Andrew Foote, and Grant, who had landed three miles downstream, was mired up in mud and slush and got to Henry too late to be involved in the fighting.
One real Southern hero who emerged from the Fort Donelson affair was one Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest, who swore he would lead his command out of the besieged fort or "bust hell wide open". This wasn't the last time Grant would have dealings with the "Wizard of the Saddle".
"Our" enemies?
Right now, the South is part of America and what was done to their American ancestors is American history.
Have you ever considered that the people from Massachussetts and New York pouring artillery fire on the civilians in the City of Charleston, South Carolina from Morris Island, in frustration because they were unable to capture the Confederate-held Fort Sumpter, might be considered "the enemy" to Charlestonians, South Carolinians and other Southerners?
On the average, I would say that, in the year 2004, the citizens of the conservative Southern states are more supportive of the United States of America than are the citizens of the liberal Northern states.
Being an "American" or being part of the U.S. does not mean you have to kiss the butt of those who were born and raised north of the Potomac River.
Primarily noting slavery, actually, a fact you guys can be truthful about.
The Pillow incident was late in the war, and the North was using the blacks to taunt and humiliate the CSA. So naturally a lot of pent up rage came into play with that battle.
You're excusing an atrocity??!! The murder of hundreds of POWs??!!
As far as the KKK is concerned your fellow Democrat Robert Byrd being a member,...
You are a liar. I've never voted Dem in my life.
...was originally formed to fight back against the corruption of the carpetbaggers and extremists who still were out to punish the South.
No, they formed to deny blacks their rights and to keep Republicans from the polls.
In the early 20's the KKK came back as a mostly anti black organization,...
They were anti-black in the 1860s also. Black-POW-murderer Forrest was Grand Wizard.
...and if you look at the photos of the rallies, they were all carrying USA flags.
So? Are you denying that it was rebels who formed the KKK? They wore sheets to symbolize fallen confederate soldiers.
Its not until lately with the Jerry Springer actors playing KKK goons that you see the CSA flag and the KKK together, as well as a few wannabe groups. The KKK that actually lynched people flew the the stars and stripes, so is the USA flag the "flag of hate"?
Why are you asking me that? I never said the coinfederate flag was a flag of hate. I have always said it is a flag for the soldiers. The slaveholder-secessionists were full of hate though, as was the early Klan.
It seems that you are the one playing the "half truth" game, or you do it out of ignorance getting your history from Al Sharpton and CNN.
What half-truth?
The county-by-county map of the 2000 election on my homepage shows that the differences are rural vs. urban, not North versus South. The North just has bigger cities that end up swinging the entire state. One of Bush's biggest block of red counties in a higher-popluated area goes from northest Ohio almost to St Louis.
The county-by-county map of the 2000 election on my homepage shows that the differences are rural vs. urban, not North versus South. The North just has bigger cities that end up swinging the entire state.
Which is precisely why I wrote, "On the average,....the citizens of the conservative Southern states are more supportive of the United States of America than are the citizens of the liberal Northern states."
"Counties" don't vote. Citizens do.
"Cows in rural counties" don't vote. Citizens do.
"Square acreage" doesn't vote. Citizens do.
My statement stands:
"On the average, I would say that, in the year 2004, the citizens of the conservative Southern states are more supportive of the United States of America than are the citizens of the liberal Northern states."
That's a bad way to put it though...misleading. I would put citizens of Indianapolis or Cincinnati against those of Atlanta and Miami and consider my odds pretty good. Likewise the rural areas here would do fine against rural areas in Louisiana or Tennessee.
"Counties" don't vote. Citizens do. "Cows in rural counties" don't vote. Citizens do. "Square acreage" doesn't vote. Citizens do.
Really Sherlock?
My statement stands: "On the average, I would say that, in the year 2004, the citizens of the conservative Southern states are more supportive of the United States of America than are the citizens of the liberal Northern states."
In order to not be misleading, I would add that "being that the northern states have a higher percentage of urban voters", but if you want to mislead, then that is your choice.
What part of "on the average" do you have trouble understanding?
The number of liberals in New York, Massachusetts and New England overwhelm the number of conservatives you may have in Indiana and Ohio.
Also, in the bombardment of Charleston, there were no Indiana or Ohio units.
"Counties" don't vote. Citizens do. "Cows in rural counties" don't vote. Citizens do. "Square acreage" doesn't vote. Citizens do.
Really Sherlock?
Yes, really. It's a very elementary point but it seems to have to be pointed out to people such as you who seems to think that the square acreage of counties who go for a certain candidate somehow has more meaning than the absolute number of citizens that vote for a candidate.
My statement stands: "On the average, I would say that, in the year 2004, the citizens of the conservative Southern states are more supportive of the United States of America than are the citizens of the liberal Northern states."
In order to not be misleading, I would add that "being that the northern states have a higher percentage of urban voters", but if you want to mislead, then that is your choice.
Ummmm,....genius,.....an urban voter's vote carries just as much weight as a rural voters vote.
What matters is the absolute number of voters.
Yes, Northern states have more liberal, metro-sexual, left-wing, anti-American, anti-religious, U.N.-loving, Hillary-electing, America-hating voters than Southern states do and they happen to like living in cities rather than in rural areas so that they don't break a fingernail mending a fence or get their Gucci loafers muddy.
It took me a long time to realize how they fed them, they pillaged farmers, but it must have been hell for both sides.
I live close to Gettysburg and have visited often. It still amazes me how they got there in the first place. I guess they took I-95? Yea, sure.
Just imagine walking from somewhere in the deep south to Pennsylvania. Awesome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.