Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
THOMASVILLE -- Nelson Winbush knows his voice isn't likely to be heard above the crowd that writes American history books. That doesn't keep him from speaking his mind, however.
A 75-year-old black man whose grandfather proudly fought in the gray uniform of the South during the Civil War, Winbush addressed a group of about 40 at the Thomas County Museum of History Sunday afternoon. To say the least, his perspective of the war differs greatly from what is taught in America's classrooms today.
"People have manufactured a lot of mistruths about why the war took place," he said. "It wasn't about slavery. It was about state's rights and tariffs."
Many of Winbush's words were reserved for the Confederate battle flag, which still swirls amid controversy more than 150 years after it originally flew.
"This flag has been lied about more than any flag in the world," Winbush said. "People see it and they don't really know what the hell they are looking at."
About midway through his 90-minute presentation, Winbush's comments were issued with extra force.
"This flag is the one that draped my grandfathers' coffin," he said while clutching it strongly in his left hand. "I would shudder to think what would happen if somebody tried to do something to this particular flag."
Winbush, a retired in educator and Korean War veteran who resides in Kissimmee, Fla., said the Confederate battle flag has been hijacked by racist groups, prompting unwarranted criticism from its detractors.
"This flag had nothing to with the (Ku Klux) klan or skinheads," he said while wearing a necktie that featured the Confederate emblem. "They weren't even heard of then. It was just a guide to follow in battle.
"That's all it ever was."
Winbush said Confederate soldiers started using the flag with the St. Andrews cross because its original flag closely resembled the U.S. flag. The first Confederate flag's blue patch in an upper corner and its alternating red and white stripes caused confusion on the battlefield, he said.
"Neither side (of the debate) knows what the flag represents," Winbush said. "It's dumb and dumber. You can turn it around, but it's still two dumb bunches.
"If you learn anything else today, don't be dumb."
Winbush learned about the Civil War at the knee of Louis Napoleon Nelson, who joined his master and one of his master's sons in battle voluntarily when he was 14. Nelson saw combat at Lookout Mountain, Bryson's Crossroads, Shiloh and Vicksburg.
"At Shiloh, my grandfather served as a chaplain even though he couldn't read or write," said Winbush, who bolstered his points with photos, letters and newspapers that used to belong to his grandfather. "I've never heard of a black Yankee holding such an office, so that makes him a little different."
Winbush said his grandfather, who also served as a "scavenger," never had any qualms about fighting for the South. He had plenty of chances to make a break for freedom, but never did. He attended 39 Confederate reunions, the final one in 1934. A Sons of Confederate Veterans Chapter in Tennessee is named after him.
"People ask why a black person would fight for the Confederacy. (It was) for the same damned reason a white Southerner did," Winbush explained.
Winbush said Southern blacks and whites often lived together as extended families., adding slaves and slave owners were outraged when Union forces raided their homes. He said history books rarely make mention of this.
"When the master and his older sons went to war, who did he leave his families with?" asked Winbush, who grandfather remained with his former owners 12 years after the hostilities ended. "It was with the slaves. Were his (family members) mistreated? Hell, no!
"They were protected."
Winbush said more than 90,000 blacks, some of them free, fought for the Confederacy. He has said in the past that he would have fought by his grandfather's side in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry led by Gen. Nathan Bedford Forest.
After his presentation, Winbush opened the floor for questions. Two black women, including Jule Anderson of the Thomas County Historical Society Board of Directors, told him the Confederate battle flag made them uncomfortable.
Winbush, who said he started speaking out about the Civil War in 1992 after growing weary of what he dubbed "political correctness," was also challenged about his opinions.
"I have difficulty in trying to apply today's standards with what happened 150 years ago," he said to Anderson's tearful comments. "...That's what a lot of people are attempting to do. I'm just presenting facts, not as I read from some book where somebody thought that they understood. This came straight from the horse's mouth, and I refute anybody to deny that."
Thomas County Historical Society Board member and SVC member Chip Bragg moved in to close the session after it took a political turn when a white audience member voiced disapproval of the use of Confederate symbols on the state flag. Georgia voters are set to go to the polls a week from today to pick a flag to replace the 1956 version, which featured the St. Andrew's cross prominently.
"Those of us who are serious about our Confederate heritage are very unhappy with the trivialization of Confederate symbols and their misuse," he said. "Part of what we are trying to do is correct this misunderstanding."
So Yankees have no rights? I wouldn't go that far.
By your logic the Founders' should've gone to the Parliament for approval before seceeding from Britain in 1776. That's totally moronic! You cut the cord and form your own government. Where in this following selection of the Declaration of Independence does it say "seek approval first"?
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Uhhhhhhhhhh, I don't see it anywhere that one must ask permission first. That would be like telling an opposing force "Okay, we'll attack you at such and such a time". Talk about stupid.
As for the rest of your "We set men free speech" spare me the hyperbole. You guys were the aggressors and the reason the South fired on Sumter was that Lincoln sent a reinforcement force under the guise of supply. While I admit the firing on the Fort was a miscalculation on the Souths part, that damn war really didn't need to be fought.
If I was black? Well I'm not, but I'm of Irish descent so don't lay the sob story about slavery on me. My race has been oppressed by the English for 700 years. And while I don't condone slavery in any form, I condemn oppression of any type under any guise. And once again the war wasn't about slavery, that was a ploy used by Lincoln in 1863 when the war was going badly on the home front. It was about the right of secession.
You see no difference between a constitutional government and a monarchy?
You cut the cord and form your own government. Where in this following selection of the Declaration of Independence does it say "seek approval first"?
The Declaration of Independence is not our law, the Costitution is. And Article IV was agreed upon by all who signed on to the Constitution. And Article IV is not requiring anyone to seek approval, but it just outlines the procedure for the South to prove it's secession.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That's fine if you have the power to break the law, as we did against Britain. But you didn't and since you didn't, you were beat. So now you shouldn't complain about being taken to task for breaking the law. Since you didn't have the power to get away with breaking the law, it would've been better for you to follow Article IV.
Uhhhhhhhhhh, I don't see it anywhere that one must ask permission first. That would be like telling an opposing force "Okay, we'll attack you at such and such a time". Talk about stupid.
It was stupid to get into a fight that you couldn't win, and by breaking the law, that's exactly what you did. Since you didn't have the military strength to get away with breaking the law, you should've followed the law in your secession.
As for the rest of your "We set men free speech" spare me the hyperbole. You guys were the aggressors and the reason the South fired on Sumter was that Lincoln sent a reinforcement force under the guise of supply.
It was our property, we could do as we wished.
While I admit the firing on the Fort was a miscalculation on the Souths part, that damn war really didn't need to be fought.
Too late for woulda couldas. You attacked the United States. When we have presidents like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt (military-wise), Reagan, and the Bushes, you're just not going to get away with that.
If I was black? Well I'm not, but I'm of Irish descent so don't lay the sob story about slavery on me. My race has been oppressed by the English for 700 years.
I'm English. It just never ends, does it? lol
And while I don't condone slavery in any form, I condemn oppression of any type under any guise.
Oppresion is why the South seceded, they wanted to perpetuate oppression.
And once again the war wasn't about slavery, that was a ploy used by Lincoln in 1863 when the war was going badly on the home front. It was about the right of secession.
Going past the attack on the United States, it was about preserving the union, actually. The elimination of slavery was a great fringe benefit.
I didn't press the abuse button.
The result is always the same, viz.: everyone who has something meaningful to contribute to the discussion leaves to escape the stench of his inanities in what becomes every other new post made to the thread and the discussion dies prematurely, leaving only him behind. The only way to avoid this situation is to simply abstain from responding to what he says and he'll eventually wander off to another thread on another subject and repeat the same practice there.
Actually, it says no such thing. It still says what it has always said. The part about "Congress would decide how the South would prove their secession" is still AWOL.
U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 2: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
If one were to actually try to apply the law in such manner as you construe, the State would secede and, having seceded and no longer being a member of the United States, would then ask the United States Congress to prescribe the manner in which their act of secession shall be proved.
Article 4, Sec 1, The Full Faith and Credit Clause, "empowers Congress to regulate the manner in which the laws of one state shall be recognized in another."
FULL FAITH AND CREDITBeyond court proceedings, the clause says that "public acts" shall be entitled to full faith and credit, but the Court has not read this provision strictly. The Court relied on a loose reading in DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD to avoid giving Dred Scott his freedom. Scott had argued that because he had moved to a free state he had gained freedom, which he could not lose upon returning to a slave state. The Court said that "no state... can enact laws to operate beyond its own dominions." But the Court's absolute pronouncement has been somewhat eroded by the development of a CHOICE OF LAW jurisprudence that sometimes requires one state to follow the law of another. A prime example is the Court's century-old conclusion that a contract must ordinarily be interpreted by the law of the state where it was made, not in the state where a lawsuit is brought. But the rule is fraught with many exceptions; for example, the forum state need not abide by the rule of the contract state to award interest on a judgment.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to regulate the manner in which the laws of one state shall be recognized in another. In doing so, Congress has commanded federal courts to be bound by the same general rules, and the Court has upheld the constitutionality of this law. Under the Supremacy Clause, the reverse also holds true. State courts must respect the laws and judgments not merely of sister states, but of the federal government as well.
SOURCE: A Practical Companion to the Constitution, How the Supreme Court Has Ruled on Issues from Abortion to Zoning, Jethro K. Lieberman, University off California Press, 1999, p. 209
[nc] Actually, orders to violate the existing armistice were issued within 8 days of Lincoln's inauguration.
[#3Fan] Sumter was fired upon, there's no getting around that.
The Lincoln administration ordered a violation of an existing armistice, to which the United States Government was a party, and did so on March 12, 1861, a month before Sumter was fired upon, and there's no getting around that.
Lincoln knew full well about the armistice, and undeniably so after Captain Adams correctly refused to comply with the unlawful orders shown to him by Captain Vogdes.
April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola
Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.
Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.
[#3Fan] It was federal property. We could do as we wished.
There was an armistice in effect and on March 12, 1861 orders were issued to violate the armistice.
Actually, there seem to have been a few.
"[It] was illegal, and in my view monstrous." ~Gideon Welles~
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4.
[Page 318]
To Gideon Welles
(Confidential.)
Executive Mansion
April 1, 1861.
To the Secretary of the Navy.
Dear Sir:
You will issue instructions to Captain Pendergrast, commanding the home squadron, to remain in observation at Vera Cruz---important complications in our foreign relations rendering the presence of an officer of rank there of great importance.
Captain Stringham will be directed to proceed to Pensacola with all possible despatch, and assume command of that portion of the home squadron stationed off Pensacola. He will have confidential instructions to cooperate in every way with the commander of the land forces of the United States in that neighborhood.
The instructions to the army officers, which are strictly confidential, will be communicated to Captain Stringham after he arrives at Pensacola.
Captain Samuel Barron will relieve Captain Stringham in charge of the Bureau of detail.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
P.S. As it is very necessary at this time to have a perfect knowledge of the personnel of the navy, and to be able to detail such officers for special purposes as the exigencies of the service may require. I request that you will instruct Captain Barron to proceed and organize the Bureau of detail in the manner best adapted to meet the wants of the navy, taking cognizance of the discipline of the navy generally, detailing all officers for duty, taking charge of the recruiting of seamen, supervising charges made against officers, and all matters relating to duties which must be best understood by a sea officer. You will please afford Captain Barron any facility for accomplishing this duty, transferring to his department
[Page 319]
the clerical force heretofore used for the purposes specified. It is to be understood that this officer will act by authority of Secretary of the Navy, who will exercise such supervision as he may deem necessary.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy under Lincoln, wrote:
Late in the afternoon of the 1st of April, while at my dinner at Willard’s, where I then boarded, Mr. Nicolay, the private secretary of the President, brought me a large package from the President. I immediately broke the envelope, and found it contained several papers of importance, some of which were of a singular character, being in the nature of instructions or orders from the Executive relative to naval matters of which I knew the President was not informed, and about which I had not been consulted. One of these papers relating to the government of the Navy Department was more singular and extraordinary than either of the others, and was as follows:[Here Welles quoted the document I have quoted above.]
... I went without a moment’s delay to the President with the package in my hand. ... I then read the foregoing document, the body of which was in the handwriting of Captain Montgomery C. Meigs of the army, the postscript in that of Lieutenant D. D. Porter of the navy. ...
... I informed the President that I had no confidence in the fidelity of Captain Barron, who was by this singular order, issued in his name, to be forced into official and personal intimacy with me, and virtually to take charge of the Navy Department. ... I called his attention to the order, if I was so to consider it, to organize a Bureau of Detail in the Navy Department, and to transfer to a naval officer a portion of the clerical force and civil administrative duties which by law belonged to the Secretary of the Navy -- duties which the Secretary had no right to evade and no legal authority to depute to another. The bureaus of the Department, he was doubtless aware, were established by law and not by an executive order. That this proposition to make a naval officer Secretary de facto, to transfer him from his professional to civil duties without responsibility, was illegal, and in my view monstrous.
It conflicted with the whole theory of our Government and the principles on which the Navy Department was organized and established. The Senate was entitled to a voice in the appointment of chiefs of bureaus. ... Barron was one of the last men I could trust in this emergency with these matters of detail and departmental business.
Neither the President nor Secretary had power to create a new bureau or to bring a professional naval officer into the Department, and devolve on him the functions which, the law imposed on the Secretary.
... I then went on to say that Captain Barron was an accomplished officer and gentleman with whom I had personally pleasant relations, but that his feelings, sympathies, and associations were notoriously with the secessionists; that he was prominent in a clique of naval exclusives, most of whom were tainted with secession; that I was not prepared to say he would desert in the crisis which seemed approaching, but I had my apprehensions that such would be the case; that while I should treat him courteously and with friendly consideration, and hoped most sincerely he would not prove false, I could not consent be should have the position nor give him the trust which his instructions imposed.
... He remembered, he said, that both Mr. Seward and Porter had something to say about Barron as superior to almost any officer in the naval service.... There was at that time a clique of prominent naval officers, as there has been on more than one occasion, anxious to take possession of and control the Navy Department. Many of them were in Washington, and most of them were inclined to secession, of whom Barron was perhaps chief.
... Barron,conspicuous as a courtier, was the agent who had negotiated and perfected the agreement between Messrs. Holt and Toucey, of Buchanan’s Cabinet, and Messrs. Mallory and Colonel Chase on the part of the secessionists, by which the Government was not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it should be attacked. He was a cunning and skilful manager, possessed of considerable diplomatic talents, and was deep in all the secession intrigues in Washington at that period.
When I inquired the object of detaching Commodore Stringham from duty in the Department where I had placed him, the President said he had no reason to give, and in regard to issuing instructions to Commodore Pendergrast he was equally ignorant. He knew no cause for either. There was, however, a manifest purpose in some quarter to get rid of the presence of these experienced and trusted officers, and also to get Barron into a responsible position.
The President was confident, and I became satisfied on inquiry that Commodore Stringham had no part in the matter; but there had been an improper movement, I will not say intrigue, in some quarter to set him, who had my confidence, aside for Barron, who had not.
Attempts to absolve Lincoln of responsibility by putting it on Seward, Meigs and Porter are unavailing. It is undeniable that, on April 1, 1861, Lincoln knew about the involvement of Seward, Meigs and Porter in attempting to subvert the law and place Samuel Barron effectively in charge of the U.S. Navy. If Lincoln had simply been duped by these men, his reaction should have been fury. Heads should have rolled. What actually happened?
Look at what Lincoln issued on April 1, 1861.
April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USNYou will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.
Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.
You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.
This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. SewardApril 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy YardFit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy YardYou will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
William Seward continued as Secretary of State and countersigned orders for Lt. Porter to take command of the USS Powhatan without the knowledge of the Secretary of the Navy. The commandant of the Brooklyn Navy Yard was specifically instructed, "you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out." Lincoln continued to engage in this intrigue to subvert the Navy.
On April 6, 1861, Lt. Porter took the Powhatan from its rightful captain, Captain Mercer, and set sail. The Powhatan was to be the flagship for the Sumter expedition and carried material essential for the mission.
Lt. Porter did not reappear until April 17, 1861 when he arrived off the coast of Florida. Speaking of Fort Pickens, Gideon Welles wrote:
"... the fort was again relieved and reinforced before Lieutenant Porter made his appearance on the 17th with the Powhatan, having on board the launches and men destined for Sumter.
Gideon Welles wrote:
General Meigs declares that “the overt act of interference with the navy most complained of” is the matter of the Powhatan. This is a serious mistake. Highly improper as was that interference, it is vastly less exceptionable and reprehensible than the executive order to create a new naval bureau and make Barron chief, which was at the same time and by the same parties extracted from the President. Was Captain Meigs, in whose handwriting this mysterious order first appeared detailing Barron for Department duty, the author of this intrigue? Was Lieutenant D. D. Porter, who wrote the remarkable postscript to that remarkable order directing the Secretary of the Navy to establish a new bureau and do other illegal acts, guilty of that impropriety, disrespect, and interference with his superior? Or was there some one else who attempted thus to interfere with the organization of the Navy Department, and to place a rebel captain in a position for “detailing all officers for duty,” whereby the most important commands could be given to rebels; “supervising charges made against officers," which would enable rebel officers to escape conviction and punishment? This interference with the organization and administration of the Navy Department was attempted by some one. General Meigs would brush it over; says he has “no distinct recollection" of this order and postscript, which was published in THE GALAXY for November; that “of details within the Navy Department, such as are referred to in the postscript in regard to Captain Barron, he had no knowledge, and upon them could not have given advice.” Nevertheless, this strange document -- an executive order, creating without authority of law a new bureau in the Navy Department; placing a rebel captain in charge of its operations; empowering him to detail all officers for duty, to supervise charges made against officers, etc., was written by himself and Lieutenant Porter -- a joint labor and a divided responsibility. Whether they originated the measure or were the mere instruments of others, has never been disclosed.
What became of these officers who either conspired with, or duped Lincoln?
William Seward continued as Secretary of State and continued to implement a surreptitious plan to frustrate the navy mission to Sumter. Orders were issued by Lincoln directing that the Navy Department be kept in the dark.
Army Captain Meigs became a general.
Navy Lt. Porter became an admiral.
And what of U.S. Navy Captain Barron?
As Gideon Welles writes:
A few weeks after this attempt to thrust him into the Department, the greater portion of this clique of exclusives sent in their resignations, deserted the flag, and were dismissed the service. Barron, foremost among them, was placed by the rebels in Richmond in command of Fort Hatteras....Barron, ... took rank as captain in the Confederate naval service from the 26th of March, five days before this executive order to create a new bureau and establish him as regent of the Navy Department ....
Secession was an act.
U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 2: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. If one were to actually try to apply the law in such manner as you construe, the State would secede and, having seceded and no longer being a member of the United States, would then ask the United States Congress to prescribe the manner in which their act of secession shall be proved.
"Prescribe" means that the Congress decides before to act is carried out.
Article 4, Sec 1, The Full Faith and Credit Clause, "empowers Congress to regulate the manner in which the laws of one state shall be recognized in another." FULL FAITH AND CREDIT Beyond court proceedings, the clause says that "public acts" shall be entitled to full faith and credit, but the Court has not read this provision strictly. The Court relied on a loose reading in DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD to avoid giving Dred Scott his freedom. Scott had argued that because he had moved to a free state he had gained freedom, which he could not lose upon returning to a slave state. The Court said that "no state... can enact laws to operate beyond its own dominions." But the Court's absolute pronouncement has been somewhat eroded by the development of a CHOICE OF LAW jurisprudence that sometimes requires one state to follow the law of another. A prime example is the Court's century-old conclusion that a contract must ordinarily be interpreted by the law of the state where it was made, not in the state where a lawsuit is brought. But the rule is fraught with many exceptions; for example, the forum state need not abide by the rule of the contract state to award interest on a judgment. The Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to regulate the manner in which the laws of one state shall be recognized in another. In doing so, Congress has commanded federal courts to be bound by the same general rules, and the Court has upheld the constitutionality of this law. Under the Supremacy Clause, the reverse also holds true. State courts must respect the laws and judgments not merely of sister states, but of the federal government as well. SOURCE: A Practical Companion to the Constitution, How the Supreme Court Has Ruled on Issues from Abortion to Zoning, Jethro K. Lieberman, University off California Press, 1999, p. 209
It's easier to just read the Constitution. The Constitution says the the South should've let the Congress prescribe the rules.
The Lincoln administration ordered a violation of an existing armistice, to which the United States Government was a party, and did so on March 12, 1861, a month before Sumter was fired upon, and there's no getting around that.
It was our property, we could do as we wished. And since secession wasn't proven, there was no armistice because there was no Confederacy, legally.
Lincoln knew full well about the armistice, and undeniably so after Captain Adams correctly refused to comply with the unlawful orders shown to him by Captain Vogdes.
There was no armistice because the Confederacy didn't exist. It's like when the police tell drug dealers to come to a building to claim money and then they get arrested. Since the drug dealers are unlawfully at large the agreement for the money doesn't exist.
April 1, 1861 To Captain H.A. Adams Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order. Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg. [#3Fan] It was federal property. We could do as we wished. There was an armistice in effect and on March 12, 1861 orders were issued to violate the armistice.
Secession wasn't proved, so there was no Confederacy, and therefore no armistice. You don't make armistices with outlaws.
Secession is only an "act" when it is actually done.
[#3Fan] "Prescribe" means that the Congress decides before to act is carried out.
Only the Constitution does not say that, it says this: U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 2: "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The Congress may, prescribe, by general Laws.... Congress had not chosen to enact any such applicable general Law. It has still not enacted any such applicable general Law.
[#3Fan #198] The South didn't allow the Congress to prescribe the general laws that would've proved the South's secession.
Following this logic, that it is the power of the South that did not allow the U.S. Congress to act, I observe that the power of the South has now prevented the U.S. Congress from prescribing the manner of secession for over two centuries.
[#3Fan] It's easier to just read the Constitution. The Constitution says the the South should've let the Congress prescribe the rules.
It is good to read the Constitution. It is not good to rephrase it and say your rephrasing is the Constitution.
[#3Fan] It was our property, we could do as we wished. And since secession wasn't proven, there was no armistice because there was no Confederacy, legally.
The Armistice was entered into by the U.S. Government during the Buchanan administration with the authorities of the Sovereign State of Florida.
[#3Fan] There was no armistice because the Confederacy didn't exist. It's like when the police tell drug dealers to come to a building to claim money and then they get arrested. Since the drug dealers are unlawfully at large the agreement for the money doesn't exist.
That sounds more like the cop trying to explain why the drugs are missing from the evidence locker. If breaking the deal would mean a four-year war and 360,000 cops being killed, it is unlike any such deal as you described.
[#3Fan] Secession wasn't proved, so there was no Confederacy, and therefore no armistice. You don't make armistices with outlaws.
The official records of the United States Government establish that the deal was made.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 355-6
WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861.
TO JAMES GLYNN, commanding the Macedonian; Captain W. S. WALKER, commanding the Brooklyn, and other naval officers in command; and Lieutenant ADAM J. SLEMMER, First Regiment Artillery, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.:
In consequence of the assurance received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such an assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn unless said fort shall be attacked or preparations shall be made for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land. The Brooklyn and other vessels of war on the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost vigilance and be prepared at a moment's warning to land the company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel an attack on the fort.
The President yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the Virginia resolutions of compromise. The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday, the 4th February, and it is important that during their session a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be made or there should be preparation for such an attack. In either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly.
Your right, and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola, freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger, and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present instruction is given.
J. HOLT,
Secretary of War.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
O.R. Series 1, Vol 1, Part 1, page 357-8
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLA., February 7, 1861.
Colonel L. THOMAS, Assistant Adjutant-General, U. S. Army:
SIR: I have the honor to report that I arrived on this station yesterday in the U. S. steamer Brooklyn, with Company A, First Artillery. I met orders here which prevent the landing of my company or the reenforcement of the garrison of Fort Pickens at present. Yesterday I landed at Fort Pickens, assumed command of the forces on the station, inspected the defenses, and had a consultation with Lieutenant Sleemer. I am compelled to remain on board the Brooklyn for the present, and can, of course, only give general instructions to Lieutenant Slemmer. I am sorry to inform the Department that I found Fort Pickens in a very inefficient state of defense. At the time Lieutenant Slemmer removed his command to Fort Pickens there were only forty guns mounted in the fort. At present there are fifty-four in position. The accompanying sketch indicates the position and class of guns now in position; total, fifty-four of all kinds.
Lieutenant Slemmer has with him only forty-six enlisted men for duty, and thirty ordinary seamen from the yard at this station, and the latter are entirely untrained, insubordinate, and of but little use in case of attack. There are fifty-seven embrasures that are unprovided with cannon, and are only about seven feet from the bottom of the ditch, and at present but few of them have only the common wooden shutter, presenting only a slight obstacle to an enemy. There are only very imperfect means of barricading them. Such as they are, however, I have given orders to be immediately employed.
Lieutenant Slemmer has been obliged to employ his command in getting guns into position and in barricading the embrasures. He is obliged to keep one-half of his men under arms every night, and they are nearly all exhausted with fatigue. The guns and carriages and implements are all old, and nearly unserviceable. I have made a requisition direct on the Department for the necessary supply of guns, carriages, and ammunition. The supply of this last is very inadequate. There is no ammunition for the columbiads, no cartridge bags for them, nor flannel to make any. In fact, had it been the intention of the government to place the fort in the state to render its defense impossible, it could not have been done more efficiently that it has been done. The post is without any medical officer, and if it is intended to defend it there should be an Engineer officer sent at once to the station. I trust that the Department will immediately order that the supplies requested be sent. There are no bunks either for the hospital or for the troops, and but little bedding for the sick. I request a supply may be sent. There are plenty of provisions for the present, although I should like some desiccated vegetables and supplies for the officers. I would mention that all of the troops will be compelled to live in open casemages, and many of them will soon be on the sick-list.
The seceders have a considerable force in and about Pensacola; what number I am unable to say positively, but they are estimated at about 1,700 men. They are disorderly, and very unwilling to be controlled. Their leaders, from what I can learn, I believe are sincere in their intention to observe the armistice, but their ability to control the men under their command is very doubtful. They are engaged in erecting batteries, are making sand bags, &c. They have plenty of means of transportation their troops to Saint Rosa Island, and can attack the fort on all sides at once. At present there is not one trained man to a gun within the fort. Should the enemy decide to attack, it is exceedingly probable that he might succeed in penetrating into the fort before my company could be landed or any succor could arrive from the fleet. I should therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of the fleet taking up a position such as to prevent the landing of any forces within one and a half miles of the fort; this would give time to provide for the defense of the work and the landing of the troops from the fleet; otherwise we may have the mortification and disgrace of seeing the fort taken by a body of untrained troops under our very noses.
Should the armistice be broken, my company, all the marines, and as many sailors as may raise the garrison to four hundred men should be immediately landed. All of the advantages of the present armistice are entirely on the side of the seceders. I would therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of immediately re-enforcing the garrison. The two additional companies ordered to Forts Taylor and Jefferson are not immediately required for the defense of those works. In fact, in their present state, and with the forces now in them, they would be stronger than Fort Pickens will be when garrisoned with four hundred men. Captain Meigs kindly offered his services, if necessary, to assist in the defense of this place, and I request the Department that he may be ordered to repair to this place.
Lieutenant Slemmer has done all that it has been possible to do with the small force under his command. His resolution to defend his post at all hazards evinces the highest moral courage on his part, but at the same time I must state that with any amount of vigor on the part of the assaulters his defense would have been hopeless. His resolution has probably been the means of preserving Fort Pickens from the seceders.
Yours, &c.,
I. VOGDES,
Captain, First Artillery.
P. S.-I must not be understood as recommending any violation of the existing armistice, but the collection of an amount of troops on the station as may be necessary for the defense should anything occur to rupture the present armistice.
FORT PICKENS, FLA., February --, 1861.
Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding cooperation for the protection of Fort Pickens.
[p. 109]
U.S. FRIGATE SABINE, Off Pensacola, April 1, 1861.
SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, who is here in command of some
[p. 110]
troops sent out in January last to reenforce the garrison of Fort Pickens. I have declined to land the men as Captain Yogdes requests, as it would be in direct violation of the orders from the Navy Department under which I am acting.
The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here. They would be no justification to me. Such a step is too important to be taken without the clearest orders from proper authority. It would most certainly be viewed as a hostile act, and would be resisted to the utmost. No one acquainted with the feelings of the military assembled under General Bragg can doubt that it would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war. It would be a serious thing to bring on by any precipitation a collision which may be entirely against the wishes of the Administration. At present both sides are faithfully observing the agreement entered into by the U. S. Government with Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase. This agreement binds us not to reenforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reenforce it. I saw General Bragg on the 30th ultimo, who reassured me the conditions on their part should not be violated. While I can not take ou myself under such insufficient authority as General Scott’s order the fearful responsibility of an act which seems to render civil war inevitable, I am ready at all times to carry out whatever orders I may receive from the honorable Secretary of the Navy.
In conclusion, I beg you will please send me instructions as soon as possible, that I may be relieved from a painful embarrassment.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H.A. ADAMS, Captain, Senior Officer Present.
Hon. Gideon WELLES, Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.
[Enclosure.]
Lincoln to Congress, July 4, 1861:
The first return news from the order [nc- to Captain Adams near Fort Pickens] was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was, that the officer commanding the Sabine [nc- Captain Adams, USN), to which vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice of the late administration, (and of the existence of which, the present administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors, to fix attention) had refused to land the troops.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1
Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.
JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
JULY 30, 1861.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
July 29, 1861.
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
How many women have to be raped for it to be criminal in your eyes?
A very biased author, it appears.
FYI, Don't Shoot That Boy! Abraham Lincoln and Military Justice is about the compassion extended to Union soldiers condemned to death, but spared by Lincoln. A "biased" author certainly wouldn't attempt to portray Lincoln in a positve light would he?
But I guess to you everyone is biased - primarily because you don't like the outcome. A team of researchers, and even a Chief Justice of the state of Georgia are simply liars? And it's your position that all war crimes are justified if it supresses the enemy, that attempted murder, rape and robbery are not crimes? And you think I'm delusional - ROTFL!
Where is his stories of Confederate malfeasants?
Yankee education short on reading comprehension? As I cited earlier, of the more than 5000 Confederate courts-martial, Lowry et al found 0 for rape. What do you want him to do - invent them?
So you say they didn't happen?! Man you are more delusional than I thought! All that documentation is fake?! Why you your documentation real and mine fake? You guys are out there, really out there. lol
I said thay didn't happen????? And that the documents were fake?????? Do you see pink elephants too?
And before they could do it, they had to follow Article IV.
Only the Constitution does not say that, it says this: U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 2: "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Congress may, prescribe, by general Laws.... Congress had not chosen to enact any such applicable general Law. It has still not enacted any such applicable general Law.
The South didn't allow them to prescribe the laws so the secession was illegal.
Following this logic, that it is the power of the South that did not allow the U.S. Congress to act, I observe that the power of the South has now prevented the U.S. Congress from prescribing the manner of secession for over two centuries.
No one has ever tried to secede properly. When they do, they have to go to the Congress as agreed to in Article IV.
It is good to read the Constitution. It is not good to rephrase it and say your rephrasing is the Constitution.
What rephrasing? It clearly says that the Congress may prescribe the laws. You have to give the Congress that opportunity.
The Armistice was entered into by the U.S. Government during the Buchanan administration with the authorities of the Sovereign State of Florida.
Since when is Sumter in Florida?
That sounds more like the cop trying to explain why the drugs are missing from the evidence locker. If breaking the deal would mean a four-year war and 360,000 cops being killed, it is unlike any such deal as you described.
The South broke the deal when they seceded. They were outlaws.
The official records of the United States Government establish that the deal was made.
Doesn't matter. The Confederacy didn't exist. Government records also show gay marriages in San Fransisco, but they are not actually married in the rest of the country because the mayor is now an outlaw.
Page 355 Page 356 O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 355-6 WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861. TO JAMES GLYNN, commanding the Macedonian; Captain W. S. WALKER, commanding the Brooklyn, and other naval officers in command; and Lieutenant ADAM J. SLEMMER, First Regiment Artillery, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.: In consequence of the assurance received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such an assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn unless said fort shall be attacked or preparations shall be made for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land. The Brooklyn and other vessels of war on the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost vigilance and be prepared at a moment's warning to land the company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel an attack on the fort. The President yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the Virginia resolutions of compromise. The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday, the 4th February, and it is important that during their session a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be made or there should be preparation for such an attack. In either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly. Your right, and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola, freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger, and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present instruction is given. J. HOLT, Secretary of War. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 358 O.R. Series 1, Vol 1, Part 1, page 357-8 PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLA., February 7, 1861. Colonel L. THOMAS, Assistant Adjutant-General, U. S. Army: SIR: I have the honor to report that I arrived on this station yesterday in the U. S. steamer Brooklyn, with Company A, First Artillery. I met orders here which prevent the landing of my company or the reenforcement of the garrison of Fort Pickens at present. Yesterday I landed at Fort Pickens, assumed command of the forces on the station, inspected the defenses, and had a consultation with Lieutenant Sleemer. I am compelled to remain on board the Brooklyn for the present, and can, of course, only give general instructions to Lieutenant Slemmer. I am sorry to inform the Department that I found Fort Pickens in a very inefficient state of defense. At the time Lieutenant Slemmer removed his command to Fort Pickens there were only forty guns mounted in the fort. At present there are fifty-four in position. The accompanying sketch indicates the position and class of guns now in position; total, fifty-four of all kinds. Lieutenant Slemmer has with him only forty-six enlisted men for duty, and thirty ordinary seamen from the yard at this station, and the latter are entirely untrained, insubordinate, and of but little use in case of attack. There are fifty-seven embrasures that are unprovided with cannon, and are only about seven feet from the bottom of the ditch, and at present but few of them have only the common wooden shutter, presenting only a slight obstacle to an enemy. There are only very imperfect means of barricading them. Such as they are, however, I have given orders to be immediately employed. Lieutenant Slemmer has been obliged to employ his command in getting guns into position and in barricading the embrasures. He is obliged to keep one-half of his men under arms every night, and they are nearly all exhausted with fatigue. The guns and carriages and implements are all old, and nearly unserviceable. I have made a requisition direct on the Department for the necessary supply of guns, carriages, and ammunition. The supply of this last is very inadequate. There is no ammunition for the columbiads, no cartridge bags for them, nor flannel to make any. In fact, had it been the intention of the government to place the fort in the state to render its defense impossible, it could not have been done more efficiently that it has been done. The post is without any medical officer, and if it is intended to defend it there should be an Engineer officer sent at once to the station. I trust that the Department will immediately order that the supplies requested be sent. There are no bunks either for the hospital or for the troops, and but little bedding for the sick. I request a supply may be sent. There are plenty of provisions for the present, although I should like some desiccated vegetables and supplies for the officers. I would mention that all of the troops will be compelled to live in open casemages, and many of them will soon be on the sick-list. The seceders have a considerable force in and about Pensacola; what number I am unable to say positively, but they are estimated at about 1,700 men. They are disorderly, and very unwilling to be controlled. Their leaders, from what I can learn, I believe are sincere in their intention to observe the armistice, but their ability to control the men under their command is very doubtful. They are engaged in erecting batteries, are making sand bags, &c. They have plenty of means of transportation their troops to Saint Rosa Island, and can attack the fort on all sides at once. At present there is not one trained man to a gun within the fort. Should the enemy decide to attack, it is exceedingly probable that he might succeed in penetrating into the fort before my company could be landed or any succor could arrive from the fleet. I should therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of the fleet taking up a position such as to prevent the landing of any forces within one and a half miles of the fort; this would give time to provide for the defense of the work and the landing of the troops from the fleet; otherwise we may have the mortification and disgrace of seeing the fort taken by a body of untrained troops under our very noses. Should the armistice be broken, my company, all the marines, and as many sailors as may raise the garrison to four hundred men should be immediately landed. All of the advantages of the present armistice are entirely on the side of the seceders. I would therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of immediately re-enforcing the garrison. The two additional companies ordered to Forts Taylor and Jefferson are not immediately required for the defense of those works. In fact, in their present state, and with the forces now in them, they would be stronger than Fort Pickens will be when garrisoned with four hundred men. Captain Meigs kindly offered his services, if necessary, to assist in the defense of this place, and I request the Department that he may be ordered to repair to this place. Lieutenant Slemmer has done all that it has been possible to do with the small force under his command. His resolution to defend his post at all hazards evinces the highest moral courage on his part, but at the same time I must state that with any amount of vigor on the part of the assaulters his defense would have been hopeless. His resolution has probably been the means of preserving Fort Pickens from the seceders. Yours, &c., I. VOGDES, Captain, First Artillery. P. S.-I must not be understood as recommending any violation of the existing armistice, but the collection of an amount of troops on the station as may be necessary for the defense should anything occur to rupture the present armistice. FORT PICKENS, FLA., February --, 1861. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding cooperation for the protection of Fort Pickens. [p. 109] U.S. FRIGATE SABINE, Off Pensacola, April 1, 1861. SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, who is here in command of some [p. 110] troops sent out in January last to reenforce the garrison of Fort Pickens. I have declined to land the men as Captain Yogdes requests, as it would be in direct violation of the orders from the Navy Department under which I am acting. The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here. They would be no justification to me. Such a step is too important to be taken without the clearest orders from proper authority. It would most certainly be viewed as a hostile act, and would be resisted to the utmost. No one acquainted with the feelings of the military assembled under General Bragg can doubt that it would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war. It would be a serious thing to bring on by any precipitation a collision which may be entirely against the wishes of the Administration. At present both sides are faithfully observing the agreement entered into by the U. S. Government with Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase. This agreement binds us not to reenforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reenforce it. I saw General Bragg on the 30th ultimo, who reassured me the conditions on their part should not be violated. While I can not take ou myself under such insufficient authority as General Scott’s order the fearful responsibility of an act which seems to render civil war inevitable, I am ready at all times to carry out whatever orders I may receive from the honorable Secretary of the Navy. In conclusion, I beg you will please send me instructions as soon as possible, that I may be relieved from a painful embarrassment. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, H.A. ADAMS, Captain, Senior Officer Present. Hon. Gideon WELLES, Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C. [Enclosure.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln to Congress, July 4, 1861: The first return news from the order [nc- to Captain Adams near Fort Pickens] was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was, that the officer commanding the Sabine [nc- Captain Adams, USN), to which vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice of the late administration, (and of the existence of which, the present administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors, to fix attention) had refused to land the troops. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 440 Page 441 O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1 Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant. JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed. To the Senate of the United States: In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. JULY 30, 1861. NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1861. The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest. Respectfully submitted. GIDEON WELLES. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Doesn't matter. There was no Confederacy just as those couples are not considered married in Texas. The government needed time to bring in the outlaws.
One. Just as I think the Confederate rapes against their own women were crimes. But you said there were thousands of rapes and I'm not seeing thousands, I'm seeing 350, which isn't high considering hundreds of thousands of soldiers over 4 years.
FYI, Don't Shoot That Boy! Abraham Lincoln and Military Justice is about the compassion extended to Union soldiers condemned to death, but spared by Lincoln. A "biased" author certainly wouldn't attempt to portray Lincoln in a positve light would he?
They have to be truthful some of the time.
But I guess to you everyone is biased - primarily because you don't like the outcome. A team of researchers, and even a Chief Justice of the state of Georgia are simply liars?
His story doesn't add up. People don't survive hangings unless those who were hanging him weren't really trying to kill him.
And it's your position that all war crimes are justified if it supresses the enemy, that attempted murder, rape and robbery are not crimes? And you think I'm delusional - ROTFL!
Not at all. I'm trying to get you to support your numbers. You said thousands by Sherman's men alone but all you've documented is 350 for all armies of the whole war. Huge difference.
Yankee education short on reading comprehension? As I cited earlier, of the more than 5000 Confederate courts-martial, Lowry et al found 0 for rape. What do you want him to do - invent them?
But I've shown there was a dispute over how to charge the rapists, and that many Confederates were executed fore rape by their own people. So just because there are no court martials doesn't mean there was no rapists, and it looks like there was a lot of them raping their own women instead of fighting the federals.
I said thay didn't happen????? And that the documents were fake?????? Do you see pink elephants too?
So you accept that Confederates did rape their own women or do you still want to live in fantasy-land? And by the way, you're showing how deceptive and revisionist you are by implying that the Confederates never raped. Typical of neoconfederates because the truth isn't on their side.
And accept the consequences. The Founders knew their actions were not legal, and that the British government would oppose their actions. They knew that they would have to fight for their freedom? So why were the confederate leaders dumb enough to think otherwise?
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.