Posted on 04/12/2010 12:12:09 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery -- the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.
In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Cite?
This is just from the History Channel so they probably don’t know what they’re talking about, either.
[nor does the famous CW biographer cited]
http://hnn.us/articles/42366.html
The article supports what I said. Grant rarely drank, but when he did, it was pure poison to him.
“That wasn’t Lincoln’s, that was Corwin”
Perhaps my source is wrong? My reading of it is one in which Lincoln supported this proposed amendment as written. Can you provide a reference that will, perhaps enlighten me?
“So please tell us all about that enlightened attitude in
the South towards slavery.”
There was no enlightened attitude toward slavery for either side. Individaully, and in certain groups, there was anti-slavery sentiment and activity. But, not as a whole for either side. IMO, degree of participation does not negate the fact of participation.
Why would Lincoln support the proposed amendment if he was so moved to stop slavery?
A few short years later, during the Napoleonic period, the tactics used by the colonists at Lexington would be translated into standard European light-infantry tactics. Light infantry does not fight in linear tactics using smooth-bore muskets. Instead they fight dispersed using rifled-muskets. Light infantry guarded flanks and harassed the opposing regular infantry during their evolutions. Even before the American Revolution ended British Line Infantry regiments contained several companies of light infantry.
" But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.In the case of the war between the states it would have been the exact truth if the South had said, --"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding states cried lustily, --"Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us."
lol...
The Federal government denied the states the right to nullify Federal acts deemed detrimental to them as unconstitutional.Do you see the parallels of this situation to today with Obamacare and firearm rights?
I wouldn't bother with NS. Better leave him to us secesh vets.
There were instances of foraging by Confederates, but that’s considered military necessity, well within bounds. I worked with a guy whose father was a Jewish merchant in Russia during the Great War. A German officer bought a mop and bucket at his store, and asked for an inflated receipt! Some things are universal.
You're right, the guerilla route would of made it a different kind of war.
I don’t know who you’re generalizing about when you say *Whites* but, that wouldn’t include most of us and definitely not me.
Like I said, we need to use the fact the Left won’t give up their techniques to our advantage.
The fact that it was called the Corwin Amdendment is a give-away. Here's the history of it: Link
Why would Lincoln support the proposed amendment if he was so moved to stop slavery
Because of the language of the amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." The amendment protected slavery where it existed. It did not protect the expansion of slavery. Lincoln and the Republicans were not fools. They knew that they lacked the votes to pass an amendment to outlaw slavery entirely. They could, after all, count and they knew that if the 15 existing slave states held together it would take 46 other states to adopt such an amendment. Their goal all along was to restrict slavery to areas where it was already established and let it wither on the vine there. It was that same language that made the Corwin Amendment toxic to the Southern states.
They never had that right.
Slavery was coming to an end anyway. The age of the machine was coming to their rescue.
Politicians started that war as they will the next. Shame they don’t have to fight it.
Was he snockered when he kicked the butt of every Southern general who went against him?
See post #124
Apparently *terrorism* isn’t as clear cut as the Left would have you to think.
That’s nothing to be proud of. Slaughtering your own countrymen....in some cases, your own family.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I thought you knew the USC.....
Grant is Hood with more meat for his cleaver.
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.