Happy Easter to you too!
rockrr: "My younger brother won’t watch anything with Tom Cruise in it."
I never watched Top Gun, but did like his Mission Impossible movies, maybe not quite as much as the original TV series with Barbara Bain & Martin Landau. ;-)
Tom Hanks is a different matter -- loved Saving Private Ryan & Forrest Gump, but can't watch his recent movies since his politics became so loathsome.
rockrr: "For example, the singer in my band loves Sheryl Crow so we do a couple of her songs.
I’m able to compartmentalize myself sufficiently to continue to despise her but play the song."
My tastes in music are pretty broad, but also shallow, meaning I love the best of most any genre, quickly grow tired of their lesser stuff.
In country music I love Hank Williams, Bill Monroe, Johnny Cash... here's one of my favorite pieces of all time:
Bill Monroe, My Last Days.
Note the bass player... ;-)
You mentioned Sheryl who?
She eats what?
Anyway, the music I can most listen to is just old-time Rock N Roll, especially Doo-wop.
Platters, Twilight Time
rockrr: "My first real test of this was with Michael Medved."
I used to like Medved somewhat, have heard nothing from him lately, never heard what happened.
Another such "whatever happened to?" John Batchelor.
rockrr: "Another example is Glenn Beck. I really like the guy..."
Likewise, I find I agree with Beck about half the time, the other half I have to shut him off.
You know what's odd?
Here on Free Republic, guys like wardaddy, Pelham & Diogenes Lamp -- we disagree like h*ll on the Civil War & aftermath, but so far as I can tell are totally in sync on current events & hopes for America's future.
Have a great day, FRiend. ![]()
“”Right, Democrats opposed the US Constitution since Day One in 1787, and still oppose it today.
In 1860 their opposition first became violent, and is now again approaching those levels.
The difference is that Democrats have figured out why they lost in 1865 and are determined not to repeat it — hence open borders and millions of soon-to-be legal aliens amongst us.
The fact is the South solidly supported such Democrat Progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and even Illinois Democrat Governor Adlai Stevenson, twice!
So long as they believed they were the beneficiaries of Leftist Big Government largess, Southerners were happy to support it.
It was only after they figured out somebody else was getting the Big Government money, then they began to vote against it.
Of course, we're delighted Southerners have slowly become more conservative & Republican, but let's not pretend “it was always thus”.
Don't be ridiculous — Confederates never denied demanding Fort Sumter's immediate surrender and firing the first shots when Maj. Anderson refused.
Sure, if you search the history books for earlier shots fired, you can find them, but Fort Sumter's surrender was the first actual battle of the Civil War.
“Otherwise, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
Basically, Nateman has it exactly right, but not every Democrat is 100% Democratic and not every Republican 100% Republican.
Setting aside the Trail of Tears, (”Otherwise...”) I count Andrew Jackson as more Republican than Democrat.
Since Day One in 1787 Federalists / Whigs / Republicans are the writers, ratifiers and defenders of the Constitution.
Democrats were the anti-Federalists and since then only ever defend the Constitution when it can be weaponized via “strict-construction” against their opponents.
Otherwise, once themselves in power, Democrats ignore the Constitution.
So, to the degree that, say, an Andrew Jackson or Grover Cleveland actually followed the Constitution, they were not true Democrats, but more like conservative Republicans.
Southern Democrats had a great hand in that, voting solidly for “Progressives” from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (twice!) and, outside the Deep South, even that Texas Democrat Pedernales Cowpoke, Lyndon Johnson, in 1964.
That's a total lie!
The allegedly “oppressive regime” was actually Southern Democrat rule over Washington, DC, from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861.
What Southern Democrats then could not tolerate was future prospects of having to live under the “oppression” they themselves had imposed for the past 60 years!
In 1860 Democrats went as berserk from the election of Republican Lincoln as they have since 2016’s election of Republican Trump.
It was just Democrats doing what Democrats by their natures do.
Our Founders never recognized an unlimited “right of Independence”, except under two very specific conditions:
By necessity as, “...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...”
By mutual consent as in the 1788 replacement of the old Articles of Confederation with their new Constitution.
Neither condition existed in 1860.
So our Founders would easily recognize 1861 declarations of secession & war as acts of insurrection, rebellion, “domestic violence”, invasion and treason, all of which our Founders firmly opposed in their 1787 Constitution.
Except when, having declared your secession, you then start (April 12) and formally declare (May 6) war against the United States.
The Confederacy declared war on May 6, 1861.
Lincoln declared Confederates in insurrection on April 19 and Congress agreed with Lincoln's naming it a rebellion on July 4, 1861.
SCOTUS’s supremely Crazy Roger Taney had a lot of problems with Lincoln, but after the war in Texas v. White agreed the war was rebellion and secession did not stand.
Really, 1860?
You mean 1860, the year Deep South Fire Eaters successfully split apart their majority national Democrat party, thus guaranteeing election of a minority Republican candidate?
You think Marx supported Fire Eaters?
You mean 1860, the year Democrats first went berserk & declared their secession over election of the first Republican Donald Trump?
You think Marx supported berserker Democrats?
You mean 1860, the year Democrats first began threatening violence against Union officials and seizing Union property?
You think Marx supported Democrat violence against the United States?
I beg to disagree.
The same Democrats who hoped to destroy the US Constitution in 1860 have worked since the “Progressive” era to destroy it by other means.
Southern Democrats were happy to support “Progressivism” so long as Southern Democrats were to benefit from it.
They only began flipping to conservative Republicans when that possibility disappeared.
Congressman Lincoln did draft a bill to abolish slavery (with compensation) in the Federal city of Washington, DC, in 1849.
Lincoln's view was that, according to the Constitution, each state should decide slavery for themselves, and Lincoln expected abolition would continue into Southern Border states — until SCOTUS Dred Scott:
“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.”
House Divided speech, June 16, 1858
It was the threatened expansion of slavery which brought Lincoln back into politics in 1854.
As for Corwin, that was supported unanimously by Democrats, opposed by a majority of Republicans and not opposed by Lincoln because he thought it made no actual changes.
Corwin went nowhere among Republican controlled states.
By stark contrast the 1864 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was fully supported by Lincoln, unanimously by Republicans and even by some Democrats.
Those Democrats opposed did so on states’ rights grounds, they didn't argue slavery was moral, only that it should still be left for states to decide.
Except, “DC” made no moves to “force states to stay in the union” until after:
Confederate states began seizing dozens of major Federal properties, including forts, ships, arsenals & mints.
Confederates began threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships (i.e., Star of the West).
Confederates started war at Fort Sumter.
Confederates formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
In 1861 there were 35 battles fought according to this list.
Of those, 25 were in the Union states & territories of Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma & West Virginia.
In 1861 more Confederate soldiers died invading the Union than in defending the Confederacy.
In 1861 it was a War of Southern Aggression against the United States.
In 1939 the Nazis did claim Poles refused to negotiate.
In reality, Operation Himmler included dozens of German false-flag incidents attempting to make it look like Poles were attacking Germany.
Hitler used those incidents as his excuse for invading Poland.
A “War of Polish Aggression”?
According to some.
By stark contrast, there was nothing “false flag” about 1861 Confederate invasions in Union Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia.
Nor about the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter, April 12.
No Founding Father ever expressed support for an unlimited “right of secession” at pleasure.
They did all support “secession” under two, but only two, conditions:
From necessity as in their 1776 “secession” from the Brits.
By mutual consent as in 1788, “secession” from the old Articles of Confederation to their new Constitution.
Neither condition existed in 1860.
wgmalabama: “I'm not sure what the answer is.
I am a person given God given liberty.
Not a subject of the USSA.”
There are only two real choices:
Leave — find some other country you like better than ours and move there.
Stay — and work like h*ll to politically fight the forces of “Woke” Progressive berserker Leftism — Democrats.
And the first requirement to “work like h*ll” is that you maintain a total grip on your own sanity, under no circumstances abandon that.
The results are only destructive if or when our side becomes like theirs.
If you find you can't keep a grip, then, imho, it's time to leave.
Sure, but “the Union” fired first on July 8, 1776, at the Battle of Gwynn’s Island, just four days after declaring itself free & independent — the Union fired against the Brits, not against Confederates.
Likewise, on January 8, 1861, Union troops were ordered to fire over the heads of a threatening (drunk?) crowd, but the crowd was US citizens, seemingly out for a walk, not Confederates and not even necessarily secessionists, since Florida was still a Union state at the time.
In the months & years before Fort Sumter, the US military was often called on to use force in situations which had nothing to do with Civil War, such as at Fort Barrancas.
The actual Confederate Army there, 1,000 strong, did eventually attack Union troops on October 9, 1861 at the Battle of Santa Rosa, but were repulsed.
The Star of the West incident had nothing to do with President Lincoln.
It was sent to Fort Sumter in January by Democrat President Buchanan who, while totally sympathetic to Southerners, never agreed to abandon Fort Sumter without a fight.
Pres. Buchanan had wanted to send a US Navy ship (or ships?) to reinforce Fort Sumter, but was talked out of it by Gen. Scott who thought a civilian ship had a better chance to succeed without starting Civil War.
Gen. Scott was right about not starting Civil War, but his January 1861 mission to Fort Sumter failed.
DiogenesLamp: “It was just another dirty trick from Washington DC, and it's one of the reasons nobody believed any promises out of Washington DC.”
It's certainly true that Pres. Buchanan was guilty of cowardice and of not wanting to start Civil War during his last months in office.
Had he simply repeated what Pres. Andrew Jackson did in 1830, Buchanan might have started war then & there.
You may remember, in 1830 Jackson began sending US warships and troops to Charleston with this message:
“...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[65]”
Jackson is also said to have told SC Sen. Calhoun:
“John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.”
Those words sound like something Jackson would say, and mean, though some claim he didn't actually say it.
All that is what Pres. Buchanan did not do in January 1861, in sending the civilian Star of the West, because he hoped to keep the peace a little while longer.
But when war did come at Fort Sumter, Buchanan supported the Union cause, unlike some other former Presidents.
In fact, Confederates had many times demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, going back to December 1860.
Maj. Anderson, Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln had always refused.
By April 1861 there was nothing conditional or “truce” about Confederate demands — on April 11 & 12 they again demanded immediate surrender and when Maj. Anderson tried to delay, Jefferson Davis’ orders were that Fort Sumter be “reduced”.
The Confederates’ final order to assault Fort Sumter came when only one Union ship, the Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane, sat out of sight, well outside Charleston Harbor.
First of all, that “WigWam” was intended to hold 10,000 people, of whom fewer than 500 were voting delegates.
All the rest were there strictly to observe & cheer.
Those 500 voting delegates may have been impressed with Lincoln's support, but that's not why they voted for him.
The reason Republican delegates voted for Lincoln over Seward is precisely because Seward was seen by most as a more radical abolitionists — famous for his October 1858 “Irrepressible Conflict” speech, Seward was thought more likely to start Civil War than the more “moderate” Lincoln.
After the November 1860 election, Seward careened all over the place, going rogue, sometimes supporting Lincoln, other times, not so much.
Whether, on his own, a potential President Seward, could have, would have or even wanted to prevent Civil War, might be debated, but in the end he strongly backed Lincoln's actions and supported the Union's efforts.
None of that is true.
In fact, Confederates tried to overthrow the US federal government in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
They also sent military forces to invade Pennsylvania, Ohio & Indiana, and operated guerilla forces in California, Colorado and Vermont.
In 1861 there were 35 Civil War battles fought, 25 of them in Union states & territories.
In 1861 more Confederate soldiers died invading the Union than in defending the Confederacy.””
Brother Joe, that answers my next question too.
I know what I wrote Reb. The rest of your argument is twaddle.The ‘’enshrining slavery'' argument is bull as it is recognized that the Southern colonies would not have signed on to the Constitution. Now answer the question:If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery?
The majority of Civil War battles were fought in Virginia. You're an idiot.
