Posted on 05/20/2014 8:57:04 AM PDT by Sioux-san
Not much media coverage, not much fanfare, not much reflection. A war that carved over 600,000 lives from the nation when the nation’s population was just 31 million. To compare, that would equate to a loss of life in today’s population statistics, not to mention limb and injury, of circa 6 million.
We are in the month of May, when 150 years ago Grant crossed the Rapidan to engage Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Lee stood atop Clark’s Mountain and watched this unknown (to the eastern theatre) entity lead a massive army into Lee’s home state. Soon there would be the Wilderness, where forest and brushfires would consume the wounded and dying. Days later, the battle of Spotsylvania ensued, in which hand-to-hand combat would last nearly 12 hours. Trading casualties one for one and rejecting previous prisoner exchange and parole procedures, Grant pushed on, to the left flank. The Battle of the North Anna, then the crossing of the James, and thus into the siege of Petersburg. This was 1864 in the eastern theatre.
Today there is hardly a whisper of the anniversary of these deeds, sacrifices, and destruction. Why?
One can suppose that the weak treatment of history at the alleged higher levels of education in this country contributes to the lack of attention. “It was about slavery; now on to WWI.” The War between the States was so much more complicated than the ABC treatment that academia presents. And as the old saying goes, the more complicated the situation, the more the bloodshed...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Kind of stupid, isn't it? Considering Confederate Memorial Day in Georgia was a month ago? I'm surprised you recognize this one at all.
I was just thinking about this yesterday.
150 years without war in this country.
That is a landmark.
If asserting that states have the right to secede makes me “pro-confederate”, then I am in good company with the Founding Fathers. Perhaps you prefer Bismarck. Actually, I think someone who disagrees with you must be “pro-Confederate”. Now that I think of it, I’m not sure what is wrong with the label. It can’t mean “pro-slavery” because, although Lincoln was rhetorically against slavery, he was, as a practical matter, willing to support it with a Constitutional Amendment and full enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. You can read about it in the First Inaugural, if you read. You idolize Lincoln, so are you pro-slavery? Or, do you prefer the later, more cynical Lincoln of the Emancipation Proclamation and recolonization of blacks in Africa? Do you think blacks should be deported to Africa?
The rest of your post is mainly inartfully walking back inaccurate claims that you made previously. But you do promise, I note, sources that are “New!” and “Improved!”
I hope you’ll forgive me if I stop reading your “interesting” claims. Even if you don’t forgive me, I don’t much care now that it is clear that you are still searching for a clue. I do look forward with great anticipation, however, to your forthcoming scholarly monograph on Jefferson Davis’s Secret Plan.
Before reading Guelzo, my opinion of Mead was the same as yours -- give the poor guy credit for a miraculous victory under impossible circumstances.
But Guelzo points out that Mead didn't WANT to win that battle -- he wanted to retreat, and form a defensive line many miles back, along a river.
Only the unauthorized actions and self-sacrifice of several brigade & division commanders forced Mead forward to Gettysburg.
Yes, once on the scene, and committed to battle, Mead did good work -- no complaints that I can remember from Guelzo.
But he still expected to lose the battle, and while Pickett's men were charging Cemetery Hill, where was Mead?
He was all the way in the rear, expecting defeat, and organizing his army's retreat.
But please, don't take my word for it.
I recommend you read the book, and would seriously respect your considered opinions on Geulzo's ideas.
Lincoln, along with a great many men who opposed slavery but were leery of the consequences of freedmen living side by side with white men, had been in favor of "colonization" for a very long time indeed.
It was kind of a fantasy of anti-slavery but not abolitionist men, since the logistics of the project made it utterly impractical. Doing so with today's tech and financial resources would be quite difficult, much less those of 1860.
Please don't imply that Lincoln was ever in favor of forcible deportation of black people. None of his discussion of colonization even hinted at it being anything but voluntary, and the idea was dropped once it became clear that there would be few if any volunteers.
Then you must be hell on Thomas Jefferson. This was his proposal:
"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before...My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to recieve them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions. In this I think Europe, which has forced this evil on us, and the Eastern states who have been it's chief instruments of importation, would be bound to give largely. But the proceeds of the land office, if appropriated, would be quite sufficient."
As I've said now several times: our Founders fully acknowledged a "right to secede" with mutual consent, or as a result of "oppression" or "injury", etc.
What no Founder -- zero, zip, nada -- acknowledged was a "right to secede" "at pleasure".
And yet, when the Deep South began to declare secession after the November 1860 election it was clearly understood by all, at the time, to be secession "at pleasure".
FRiend, it takes a determined effort to ignore these basic facts, and it is that effort itself which is the heart and soul of being "pro-Confederate".
Interesting thought, Chickensoup. Perhaps like all of our other undeclared ‘wars’ since WW2, it is now being fought ‘guerilla’ style on our streets without any formal Govt permission - Race wars have altered from burning down one’s own neighborhoods to ‘knockout games’ of innocent passersby - there are no innocents, no civilians, any more in guerilla warfare. Militarized police forces reacting by attacking innocent people on the streets and in their homes without due process. etc etc etc - Proxy wars, if you will, for those who want total CHAOS in America to rob us of our freedom and our livelihoods. Oh to bring back formally declared war with well-identified Enemies.
What would the Southern states had to do to secede with mutual consent?
It seems to me that this would require begging release from a tyrant.
There certainly seems to be a guerrilla component.
Knockout attacks, and militarized police are terrifying.
We are turning into a third world hell hole.
I suspect that it is any excuse to pull on those long neck buds ;’)
The only actual tyranny in 1860 was that exercised by slaveowners over their chattels.
What tyrannical acts caused secession?
I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on Meade and Gettysburg. I’ve read perhaps a dozen books on the Gettysburg campaign, but none actually about Meade as such.
I think it is entirely reasonable to point out that neither Lee nor Meade wanted to fight at Gettysburg. Both got dragged into it by their subordinates.
Meade had plans (possibly in reserve) to fall back to Pipe Creek, which was not necessarily a bad idea. The ground there might have been even better than at Gettysburg for the defense. An even more decisive victory might have been won.
That claim that Meade really, really wanted to retreat is primarily supported by Sickles and others of his political enemies. Somewhat rich, since Sickles dang near lost the battle on Day 2.
Recently finished a book about the battle, the name of which escapes me at the moment. What struck me the most, that I had not really realized before, is that the general focus on Pickett’s Charge in the general memory is quite mistaken. That charge just was not going to succeed.
OTOH, there were perhaps as many as a dozen points on Day 2 when the battle and therefore perhaps the war might have turned out completely differently.
"Mutual consent" would require states to LEAVE the Union precisely the same way they ENTERRED it -- with the approval of Congress.
But FRiend, because you have been drinking so much of the pro-Confederate propaganda, you don't understand basic history:
From the founding of the republic until the election of November 1860, there was only ever ONE tyrant in this country: the Democrat Party, dominated by the Southern slave-power.
For over 70 years there had NEVER been an anti-Slavery President, no anti-slavery Congress, and the Supreme Court voted seven-to-two for the Dred Scott decision.
That's why the Deep South's secession, starting in December 1860, had NOTHING -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with actual Federal "tyranny" and EVERYTHING to do with slave-owners' fears about their LOSS of power OVER the Federal government.
So, it was the slave-power's tyranny over the Federal Government which was destroyed by the 1860 election, causing them to first declare secession, and within months, to formally declare war on the United States of America.
Tyrants do not give up power easily, they do not "go gently into the night."
The most terrifying aspect to our country turning into a third world hell hole? It is happening with almost no resistance, political or otherwise. Surely this is a war worth fighting, right?
It is happening with almost no resistance, political or otherwise. Surely this is a war worth fighting, right?
_______________
It may be worth it to some, but certainly not many or enough.
same with the original fight for this nation - very small % were willing to fight for freedom. I have heard the figure 3% is all that would be needed.
Good one.
Most interestingly, there was one specific issue during the 1860 campaign that led directly to the breakup of the Democratic Party. It was a demand by southerners that the Party endorse a federal Slave Code for all territories, which would involve federal troops imposing acceptance of slavery by force on settlers. IOW, a major expansion of federal power.
When northern Democrats balked, the southerners walked out of the convention in two different cities. The three way split of the Democratic Party ensure Lincoln’s election, which was the immediate cause of secession.
Thus it is entirely accurate to say that the South seceded because of northern resistance to a major expansion of federal power demanded by southerners.
Hm?....Then secession today would likely be impossible.
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.