Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
I know you’ve said you don’t care why people want to rebel. So I assume if Minnesota became majority Muslim and they declared they were an independent country under sharia law, passed laws making female genital mutilation mandatory, allowing child brides, murder for the crime of homosexuality etc. You’d be one of the first ones to support them?
I'm actually hoping that California decides to leave the Union, because it would fix a lot of what is wrong in the country now.
We'd keep our military bases though. Unlike Fort Sumter, our Pacific bases are absolutely critical to national defense.
Why would you not support them? You just said when people want freedom it shouldn’t matter what the reason is? But this reason would stop you from supporting them? Your not being consistent in your beliefs.
Then if California left you would want the US to keep the bases? Don’t you believe that the bases would revert back to the state just like you claim Fort Sumter did? (even though south carolina sold the land to the US and if they wanted it back they should have gone to congress to do so because the constitution gives congress the authority over federal lands, not the President).
Also a state can’t just leave the Union. Even if states had that power at one time(which I don’t believe they did) Texas vs White makes unilateral secession unconstitutional.
You are so obviously a trained Democrat propagandist -- here imputing motives to Republican Lincoln where none such are in evidence, while ignoring Democrat Jefferson Davis' own expressions of pre-meditated intention to start Civil War at both Forts Sumter and Pickens.
Seriously, what's wrong with your brain, FRiend?
Normal people observe phenomena, trends, and facts and use them to construct understandings of the world around them. Here we have two individuals who started with a premise (actually the rejection of a premise in favor of its antithesis) and then gather data points in defense of that premise.
If the facts do not support their premise they ignore the fact that it is a fact and reject it out of hand.
In small doses it can be amusing but these two are definitely not funny.
Still waiting on an answer on why you would not support freedom for a Muslim majority in a state who wanted to break away from the the US but do support a minority of slave owning families (46%) in South Carolina who wanted to break away from the US to protect slavery?
Left-wing Lincoln-worshiper BroJoeK cannot deny that he is a devout progressive, because his written words betray him. He can only try to cover up his Leftism with verbosity, or keep quiet, the latter of which is impracticable for a cultist.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Professor James Randall was also guilty of committing an act of 'history,' as follows:... ...[Randall, James G., "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." D. Appleton & Company, 1926, pp.52-53] "
>> BroJoeK wrote: "Randall was of the Revisionist School, effectively anti-Lincoln: claiming to be "neutral" he called the war "unnecessary" and said it, "could have been avoided, supposing of course that something more of statesmanship, moderation, and understanding, and something less of professional patrioteering, slogan-making, face-saving, political clamoring, and propaganda, had existed on both sides"
Historian James Randall, who was most assuredly PRO-Lincoln, is probably most famous for this quote:
"If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent dictator."
[James G. Randall, "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." D. Appleton & Company, 1926, p.47]
Only a rabid cult-follower would claim that a psychotic lunatic, like Lincoln, who was responsible for as many as a million deaths, and who intentionally starved to death countless women, children and old men in the dead of winter, to be "benevolent." Therefore, Randall was a devout Lincolinte – NO DOUBT!
The only reasonable and honest way to characterize Lincoln is, he was pre-Hitler, pre-Stalin, or pre-Mao, or all three. Big-government, central-planning Marxists, like BroJoeK, absolutely cherish Lincoln's memory, since he, more than anyone, destroyed the concept of a free government, and that is not only my opinion:
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]
Herr Lincoln was the consummate usurper and destroyer, and BroJoeK is NOT a friend to a Free Republic.
Mr. Kalamata
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Well at least you didn’t call him a Marxist.”
Thanks for the reminder.
Yep, the jackass named Seidule is a big-government, central-planning Marxist, who despises the original Constitution — the one that promoted liberty — the one that Lincoln destroyed.
Thanks again,
Mr. Kalamata
>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “This has been explained to you before. Lieutenant Porter immediately tried to engage the confederate shore batteries as soon as he arrived. If you think he was doing this contrary to the President’s orders, you are greatly mistaken. One can only conclude that his orders were to start a d@mn fight as soon as he got there. Nothing else is reasonable.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “You are so obviously a trained Democrat propagandist — here imputing motives to Republican Lincoln where none such are in evidence, while ignoring Democrat Jefferson Davis’ own expressions of pre-meditated intention to start Civil War at both Forts Sumter and Pickens.
BroJoeK is a master propagandist, and a closet progressive, who knows for a fact that the greedy, blood-thirsty, psychopath named Lincoln was a big-government socialist and the forerunner to the modern-day Democrat Party.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Seriously, what’s wrong with your brain, FRiend?
When BroJoeK uses the word “FRiend,” it is alway to misdirect the conversation away from his deception.
Mr. Kalamata
OIFVeteran wrote: “The North didn’t launch a war, and you know that. The rebels in the southern states started a war by firing the first shot at an American fort.”
Don’t let this progressive Lincoln-cultist get away with rewriting history. Both the Buchanan and Lincoln administrations committed acts of war before the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter.
Mr. Kalamata
BroJoeK's posts are always deceptive. The burning of Chambersburg was in retaliation for General Hunter's nighmarish terror in Virginia, only, in this case, the city of Chambersburg had an option, which the citizens of Virginia did not. Read carefully:
"July 28, 1864, [Confederate] General Early sent for [Brigadier General] McCausland to come to his headquarters at Martinsburg to explain to him orders which he was preparing for a raid into Pennsylvania. According to instructions McCausland was to take his brigade, General Bradley T. Johnson's, and Captain William G. McNutty's battery, totaling in all about 4,000 men, and proceed by way of Clear Spring and Mercersburg to Chambersburg. There he was to deliver a proclamation to the people demanding $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in greenbacks, in retaliation for damages done by [Union General] Hunter in the Valley of Virginia. If the people of Chambersburg refused, fifty of their leading citizens were to be arrested and their town was to be burned..."
"The burning of Chambersburg has been talked about a great deal and I have received my share (and more too) of abuse from the Federal side. I now [June 15, 1872] say that it was an act of war and such a one as recognized by all nations. Lextalionis is one of the rules of war and this comes clearly under the rule."
"[Union General] Hunter had gone into the valley and had done everything imaginable. Houses had been destroyed, leaving helpless women and children homeless and without shelter; furniture and bedding cut to pieces; old and young had been robbed of everything except the clothes they wore; families were left without a morsel of food. The scenes of want and misery were indescribable.... In retaliation for these acts, by Early's orders, I burned Chambersburg. I have no apology to make. My conscience is clear."
"[Union Generals] Sherman, Sheridan, and Hunter have been applauded for their depredations; for his McCausland has been unjustly condemned throughout the years, though [Union] General Grant justified him, saying:
"I have held and have so recorded my views officially, in substance, that the parole taken by officers and soldiers who were engaged in rebellion against the government, exempted them from trial or punishment for all acts of war, recognized by civilized governments, by order of their recognized superiors, so long as they observe, in good faith, the terms of their parole…"
"I would have been fully justified, by the laws of retaliation in war, in burning the town without giving the inhabitants the opportunity of redeeming it. For this act I alone am responsible, as the officers engaged in it were simply executing my orders and had no discretion left them. Notwithstanding the lapse of time which has occurred and the result of the war, I see no reason to regret my conduct."
[James Earl Brown, "Life of Brigadier General John McCausland." 1943]
Being justified by the words of General Grant is not usually something to be proud of, but, in this case, they tend to both clear the record of the Confederate, and expose the records of the Unionists.
Now you know why my Rule-of-Thumb is to never, ever believe a word BroJoeK says.
Mr. Kalamata
This is funny to a historian almost a comical mischaracterization "I assume by that is meant the people who plundered & burned their way through Union cities from Chambersburg, Pennsylvania to Lawrence, Kansas"
Confederate infantry in the Army of NoVa were required to stack arms in camp and when going to any towns nearby the encampment only the officers were armed ( too shoot any looters ). This was a standing order carried out even when in Union territory.
Well know your throwing Buchanan in their too! At least your consistent in your delusions. What’s your thoughts on Andrew Jackson’s proclamation to South Carolina during the nullification crisis of 1832? Was he a Marxist too?
The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied… it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation.
So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.
Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off.
But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?
President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832
How can an independent California allow a hostile power keep bases within their territory? Especially bases that could be used to bombard their second largest city? Once California announced their secession then the bases become their's, isn't that right?
The South seceded over slavery. They launched their war to further that aim.
I will give you that, the Army of Northern Virginia, and the confederate army in general, didn’t do a lot of pillaging. Kinda dumb actually because that’s how you win wars by destroying the enemies ability to fight. Something we’ve forgotten since WW2.
Of course the rebel army was under explicit orders to capture any “escaped slave” and return him to slavery. And as far as the rebel army was concerned every black American was an escaped slave.
Contrast that with the US Army that liberated the slaves as they conquered territory. So the rebel Army was an army of enslavement and the US army was one of freedom. I think as Americans we can all be proud of that.
Repeated endlessly, but doesn't actually work. They already had slavery. They weren't leaving to get something they already had. They were leaving to get something they didn't already have.
They launched their war to further that aim.
Because by leaving they were going to get more slavery?
Fort Sumter was pointless and unessential. It was never manned prior to Anderson taking it over, and other than a token garrison for a short period immediately following the Civil War (just to show them who was boss, and not for any real military reason) it was abandoned and no longer manned.
US basis in California actually operate as an absolutely necessary part of the US defense system. They are essential to our ability to project power in the Pacific.
Though the land might technically go back to the state, the Federal government has an absolutely essential need to continue using those facilities.
Besides, California needs to make arrangements to pay it's share of the national debt before it can leave.
Also a state can’t just leave the Union. Even if states had that power at one time(which I don’t believe they did)
See Declaration of Independence.
Texas vs White makes unilateral secession unconstitutional.
Rubber stamp court rubber stamps. News at 11.
Because pointing out the truth is "Democrat Propaganda"?
You know Porter did exactly what I said he did. You just don't know how to deal with it other than calling people who bring it to your attention "Democrat Propagandists."
Your argument must take one of two forms.
1. Porter was a rouge operating outside his orders.
2. Porter was doing exactly what the President wanted done.
Pick one.
That's a problem that needs to be dealt with before it ever gets as bad as you suggest.
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.