Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
We needed a war, which we one. The South tried the same solution, and they lost. I guess they just didn't want it as badly as the founders did?
The Supreme Court made that crap up because they were kowtowing to the political winds of the time.
When it comes to making crap up who better than you would know? Kind of like all those powers the vice president has to reject electoral votes that you made up out of whole cloth.
Do you honestly believe the crap you post? Really?
He never did have the right to do that, but like a dictator, he did it anyway, and then proclaimed his methods legal.
The 13th Amendment just made Constitutional & permanent what had already happened, long before.
The 13th amendment was the first true corruption of the US Constitution because it was passed by lies, force and trickery instead of a valid ratification process.
You don't get to pick your own electorate when the real people disagree with you. That is invalid legally and invalid morally.
But it is what a dictator does.
If they were fighting a war about slavery, they would have started in Maryland, but because they were fighting a war over economic control of a large money producing area of the country, they started the war in Virginia.
The war was about money and only money, but they launched a propaganda campaign to convince the gullible people that it was about slavery, and that's even after they tried to pass the Corwin amendment which would have made slavery permanent.
The propaganda was so good, that people today still believe it.
It was not practical to "expand" slavery into the territories. I was taught that crap in school, and a few years ago I decided to look at it, and what I discovered is that you can't grow cotton in any territories without modern irrigation systems that didn't exist in the 1860s, and therefore there would never have been any significant slavery in the territories because there was no money in it.
A slave in 1860 was valued at about $100,000.00 in today's money, and there was a substantial return on investment in cotton plantations and some in tobacco and indigo, but after that, the profits fell off quickly.
There never would have been plantations in the territories, and so there never would have been any significant slave presence in the territories.
If you look up the Wikipedia entry on "New Mexico Territory" you will notice that when "New Mexico Territory" encompassed all the land between Texas and California, they had less than a dozen slaves in all those millions of acres of territory.
If Southern Democrats believed so much in 'states rights' they wouldn't have pushed the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act through Congress.
People get stuck on that "fugitive slave act" while seeming completely unaware that Article IV, section 2 of the US constitution says the same thing as the "fugitive slave act."
Are you suggesting states defy constitutional law? How is that different from "rebellion"?
To secure the rights of all citizens to be free of people invading their state and murdering their citizens.
Do you think people have the right to not be murdered by pretentious moralizers who hate them? I would like to know, because the Antifa and BLM types are motivated by the same hate lust as those people who invaded the southern states back in 1861.
Oh, and by the way, the *UNITED STATES* guaranteed the right to slave property at that time, so spare us the deceptive moralizing intending to disguise the fact that the *UNITED STATES* protected the right to slavery at that very same time they were invading to murder people and establish Washington DC supremacy over other people.
Well sure. After some military people spike and burn a bunch of their cannons, kidnap a ships captain and force him to carry them over to a new unfinished fortress where they seize control of it, and then threaten shipping and the local town, you can't blame them for initiating some hostilities back.
But if Anderson hadn't started the hostilities, there would not have been any hostilities.
But how about this? Don't invade and murder people in the first place! Then you won't have to let your victims up easy.
No Lincoln was resupplying a FEDERAL fortification not opening hostilities. Yeah, most of the battles were fought in the South. Because THEY STARTED THE WAR!
No he didn't. The Constitution does not forbid secession. If anything, it specifically allows it based on the fact that nobody called for the rejection of the ratification by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.
In 1789, everyone knew what they meant when they wrote the US Constitution, and if no one objecting to New York, Virginia and Rhode Island's statements, it's because they were accepted as valid.
Lincoln started the war. Deliberately, and with malice aforethought. He thought it would be a picnic, and it turned horrible much to his shock and dismay.
The South had a moral and legal right to leave the nation. Lincoln had no legal or moral right to stop them.
Lee and Davis were not hung because what they did was not treason. Nobody was hung for leaving. The only people hung were hung for crimes of war and regular crimes. No one was hung for treason because leaving is not treason.
If it were "treason", nobody could immigrate to another country. People can give up their citizenship if they want. They have that right.
You may not like it, but it is true. People can give up their American citizenship, and some do.
The old nation should have left them alone.
Lie. You are trying to pretend that the *UNITED STATES* did not protect this system of industry based on the use of slave labor.
Make no mistake. The *UNITED STATES* was going to keep protecting slavery indefinitely. Stop trying to lie us into believing that would have ever changed.
The South opened the ball when it fired on Ft. Sumter.
Lincoln started the war when he attacked the South with his war fleet. He committed the first belligerent act.
Wrong. It was occupied by workers and craftsmen who were in the process of building it when it was *SEIZED* by Federal forces in an act of naked aggression after the Confederates had been told for months that the fort would be turned over to them.
This was after the cannons in fort Moultrie had been burned without warning.
First hostilities of the war were instituted by Anderson, not the confederates.
No it wasn't. Maryland had slavery, and so did Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia, and yet no armies invaded them to stamp out slavery.
Trying to force slavery to be the cause of the war is just propaganda meant to justify what the evil powers in Washington DC did to protect the financial interests of Lincoln's backers.
The war had not a D@mn thing to do with slavery, and was all about threats to the money streams of the Northeastern elite, who happened to be the same evil sons of bitches that are still running and controlling Washington DC corruption cartel to this very day.
The Corwin Amendment alone *PROVES* that slavery had nothing to do with why Northern forces invaded the South.
Northern armies invaded to protect the fat cat corruptocrats running Washington DC back in those days. And then they claimed they did it because of slavery.
Sure they did. It's in all the history books.
*AFTER* Lincoln had already started the war. The first group to invade was Northern Armies into Virginia.
You really shouldn't stand in front of the mirror while ranting and raving if you don't want people to notice.
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.