Posted on 03/03/2008 10:37:49 AM PST by Rebeleye
They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the so-called "Confederate States of America" both said it was. They will tell you that great-great grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders - not grunts - who decide whether and why a war is waged. They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Remind me to explain the concept of a 'joke' to you sometime.
I think you are wrong. The British just recognized the de facto situation. In any case the Confederacy did send representatives to Washington in early 1861 in an attempt to negotiate the property claims of the Northern government. I did a Google search on [confederacy attempt negotiate] and this was the first hit.
It's not clear to me why you pretend that things that did happen didn't; and others that didn't did.
ML/NJ
Wrong> You and Irrelevant-Conclusion would share that honor.
No! I said that if the North had allowed the South to secede the war would not have happened.
Lee lost to lesser generals. Grant did not.
As the general occupying New Orleans, Butler treated the women who failed to genuflect to him as if they were prostitutes. Here’s a little news flash for you. Making prostitutes out of the women in an occupied territory is a war crime. War criminals face summary execution if captured. Butler’s behavior was too much even for the North and he was removed from command.
Not in civilized countries, no. You're free with your claims of war crimes, but crimes require laws to be broken. And breaking the law requires a trial. Davis didn't bother with any of that. Like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, he decreed "Off with his head" and let it go at that. I would also point out that no order of Butler's could make prostitutes of southern women. They had to do that themselves.
I’m sure Sherman and Sheridan would have been shot on sight too.
No doubt. As I said earlier, the rule of law was not high on the confederate list of priorities.
There are plenty of atrocities to go around.
And yet one would expect from listening to the Southron side that atrocities were all on the Union side. You all love to complain about Sherman in Georgia but don't care to speak about Lee's army looting in Pennsylvania. You criticize Sherman for living of the land but forget that Lee's army took everything not nailed down in 1863. And that, in fact, Lee left thousands of wounded behind at Gettysburg rather than use the wagons he had loaded with confiscated goods. You don't like to talk about 'shoot on sight' orders or murdering prisoners or proclamations sending black Union prisoners to slavery and their officers to the gallows. No, that's a bit uncomfortable for you.
Sherman once noted that "War is the remedy our enemy has chosen..." Having chosen war, the south could hardly complain when it came home to roost.
Why I bother to discuss this with someone who is so ill informed is beyond me.
I am wondering the same. When Hollywood movies based on a work of fiction are one of your prime sources...
And what a colossal waste it was.
The greatest nation in history arose from the ashes -- and we're throwing it away with both hands.
Isn't that what you expected the North to do? The southern states walked out of the Union, repudiated responsibility for the national debt and left it to the remaining states, walked out of treaty obligations like the anti-slave patrols and left those to the remaining states, took every bit of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation, and you expected the U.S to 'bend-over-and-drop-trou' and let them get away with it. Hypocrisy thy name is southron supporter.
Well we have not thrown it away yet, I may be old but I still get around pretty good.
QUIT PESTERING ME.
I see. Tell you what, give me your house. Turn it over to me, give me legal title to it and all the property that's in it. Once you do that, I'll pay you a fair price for it. I promise. Deal?
The time for negotiation of issues of disagreement was before the south left and not afterwards. Having walked away from the debt and taken what they could get their hands on what incentive did they have to suddenly pay for it? And wouldn't an offer to pay for something once you've seized it be an admission that your original action was wrong to begin with?
Texas did, of course, renounce the 1845 treaty. From the ordinance the Texas voters passed overwhelmingly in February 1861:
We, the people of the State of Texas, by delegates in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States, and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America," be, and is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States or the government thereof.
The ordinance took effect March 2, 1861. Texas did not accept an invitation to join the Confederacy until March 5, 1861. So we were on our own again, if only for a few days.
Because things that didn't happen, didn't happen. Take, for example, your claim that the confederates sent a delegation to negotiate payements. That claim is patently false. Read the Davis Letter to Lincoln which introduced the men. The purpose of the delegation is listed there: "For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States..." Period. No negotiations over secession, no offer to talk about an end to the southern walk out, just a simple demand: Recognize us. Lincoln's position, if any, was not on the table. And only after Lincoln had given in to the demand for recognition of the legitimacy of the southern actions was there a vague offer to "...agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations..." Well, what if paying for federal property wasn't a matter or subject interesting to the confederacy? What if compensation for the national debt was not? Why they wouldn't have been on the table.
Southern attitudes towards these issues followed an interesting path. In the provisional constitution, article 6 section 2 contained a specific instruction that matters of debt and payment for property were to be settled. Interestingly enough that was missing entirely from the permanent constitution. And the legislation passed by the confederate congress requiring "...the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments" got further watered down to talking about "...matters and subjects interesting to both nations..." The long and short of it was that the idea that the Davis govenment felt responsibility for their actions is ridiculous, and that they never had any real interest in negotiations, much less offering any compensation at all.
And as I pointed out earlier. Quit posting bullsh*t and I won't have to respond to anything you say.
Who is holding a gun to you empty head and making you MAKE A DAMNED PEST OF YOURSELF? I damned sure isn’t me.
And, who the hell do you thinnk you are to tryh to dictate to me what I can and cnnot post without your pestering me.
NOW GET OFF MY BACK, YOU DAMNED ILLITERATE SLUG.
“And breaking the law requires a trial.”
No, breaking the law requires an illegal act. A conviction requires a trial. You seem to be confused about the procedures for civil courts in peacetime and military courts during wartime.
The North didn’t even try to put Jefferson Davis on trial. Imprisoned and indicted, yes, but never tried.
When Butler signed his general order that’s all it takes to make it a clearly illegal act. The opposing commander in chief is perfectly justified in ordering his summary execution if captured. Just like Lincoln was justified in imprisoning without charges about 10,000 Northerners thought to be Confederate sympathizers.
I notice that you don’t actually defend Butler. Go ahead. Make a case.
As long as we’re on Jefferson Davis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Montgomery
He sure did mistreat his slaves. Must have whipped this poor old Ben in order to teach him to read. Don’t forget the part where he was denied a patent by the US Government because he was a slave. Wonder how he applied for that patent?
http://www.blackwebportal.com/wire/DA.cfm?ArticleID=1559
A black Ph.D. CORRECTING a movie portrayal on a site called “blackwebportal” is not an apologist for slavery. He admits that the Union used black troops for cannon fodder, white Union troops bayonetted their own black troops and that black troops fought on the Confederate side. He insists that the truth be told. Sorry if you can’t handle it. Go read it and find that he does not mention any wanton killing of black Union troops by white Confederates as you asserted happened. Do you think this guy would have left that out of the discussion?
While my knowledge of South African history is a bit hazy, wasn't South Africa named a self-governing dominion early in the 20th century, and was an independent member of the Commonwealth with the same status as Canada or Australia ? They were a member of the League of Nations in their own right, and were a charter member of the UN. I would assume that issues of British government property would have been settled when Dominion status was given, and certainly long before South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth.
Texas should have simply renounced the 1845 Treaty and reclaimed its status as a Republic.
Texas did, of course, renounce the 1845 treaty. From the ordinance the Texas voters passed overwhelmingly in February 1861:
. . . is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State . . .
Ah! I absolutely, totally forgot!
Makes perfect sense. Since Texas was not an original member of the compact, they first needed to nullify the process which brought them into the union. And being a sovereign nation and not a territory, they had quite a bit more standing to do precisely that.
Thank you.
(Note to others. The war nullified the nullification. Though we "might" have the option to divide ourselves into five separate states via the terms of the treaty, the war decided the question of whether or not we or anybody else has the option to secede.)
Your analogy is embarassingly stupid.
You do not co-own my house. I do not own some other properties in common with you, the interest in which I would be giving up. The idea that the Northern government should retain property in the Confederacy and occupy that property was absurd. That occupation, in itself, was an act of war. All that remained to be done was to negotiate a monetary settlement for properties exchanged and this is what the representatives of the Confederacy hoped to do in Washington. The Northern government apparently refused to acknowledge these representatives.
The history may be inconvenient, but it is what it is.
ML/NJ
'Splain me now!
Any question in regard to property has always been admitted to be matter for fair and equitable settlement, in case of the withdrawal of a State."Honest Abe" wasn't interested in negotiations. Stop defending the bankrupt history they taught you in high school.
ML/NJ
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.