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 ...
I am sure it has plenty of more asinine claims to make.
That was why they positioned all of those batteries around the fort. They were getting all their small friends lined up for the ‘bully’ to show up.
Let’s see…
“On Thursday, April 11, 1861, Beauregard sent three aides, Colonel James Chesnut, Jr., Captain Stephen D. Lee, and Lieutenant A. R. Chisolm to demand the surrender of the fort. Anderson declined, and the aides returned to report to Beauregard.”
“After Beauregard had consulted the Confederate Secretary of War, Leroy Walker, he sent the aides back to the fort and authorized Chesnut to decide whether the fort should be taken by force. The aides waited for hours while Anderson considered his alternatives and played for time. At about 3:00 a.m., when Anderson finally announced his conditions, Colonel Chesnut, after conferring with the other aides, decided that they were “manifestly futile and not within the scope of the instructions verbally given to us.” The aides then left the fort and proceeded to the nearby Fort Johnson.”
“ There, Chesnut ordered the fort to open fire on Fort Sumter.[8]:59–60”
They fight. She tries screaming for help from the neighbors, but they feel it's a problem between husband and wife, and they don't help. She gets in a few good hits, but he is stronger and more powerful.
He then proceeds to beat her nearly to death, breaking bones, blacking eyes and leaving her laying on the floor in a crumpled heap. He then mocks her for being weak, and tells her it's her fault because she dared try to leave him. He lies to everybody, saying he beat her because she was bad, and not because she was trying to leave him. He then continuously tells everyone she deserved the beating she got.
As usual your analogies are inapt, inept, and retarded.
Secondly, you just gloss right over that many billions of dollars of property destroyed.
Thirdly, you analogy would only make sense if Pearl Harbor was outside of Tokyo or something.
Ridiculous analogy. I've even posted photographs showing the difference in scale and importance between the two installations. Pearl Harbor is still being used, and has a very significant military mission. Sumter was only occupied for a very short time after the war, but never did serve any useful purpose other than threatening the Confederates.
Even Lincoln said it did more by falling than it ever could have done by standing.
Worthless speck of nothing that had no real value other than to intimidate the people of South Carolina.
Yes, Lincoln deliberately tried to start the war there also. Judging by the actions of Lieutenant David Porter, acting under secret orders directly from Lincoln, we can only conclude that it was Lincoln's intent that Porter start a war in Pensacola. But for the intervention of Captain Meigs, that is exactly what would have happened.
My opinion is, at some point, Davis would have moved against Pickens. What do you think?
I don't think Pensacola was quite so important at the time as was Charleston. If I am mistaken about this, then Davis might have eventually demanded the garrison leave, but I think they would have had a great more difficulty forcing them out of it if they didn't want to leave.
I have read commentary from Lincoln's cabinet on Sumter, and one of the things they were most afraid of happening was for the Confederates to simply ignore the presence of Union troops there, and continue carrying on their business. They lamented that if that happened, they would have to again resupply the useless and pointless effort six months later, and eventually the public would call for it to stop.
Yes, they actually expressed concern that the Confederates would have done nothing. Clearly that is what they should have done. They could have left a skeleton force securing the cannons around Sumter, and then just let everyone else go home. If Anderson decided to attack something, they could rally quickly to respond, but it would have ratcheted down the tension and probably would have resulted in them keeping their independence.
Lincoln needed a war. They didn't. They shouldn't have helped him start one.
Actually it didn't. Initially it was only 7 states that seceded, and there was no war. The other states didn't join it until after Lincoln had triggered the war and announced the raising of troops to subjugate the 7 states that had seceded.
But addressing your point more directly, why would secession provoke a war? Does not the US Declaration of Independence declare it is a God given right for states to have independence if they want it?
If it declared it a right in our separation from England, why wouldn't the child nation of that document respect that same right for others?
Their reason for doing so was the preservation of slavery.
Well, so the people who went to war against them have been claiming ever since, but that assertion does not stand up to the facts. The US was going to preserve slavery indefinitely, because there were simply not enough states who would vote to change that, so slavery would have been preserved in the USA. Add to that the fact that Lincoln and his Republican allies in Congress passed the Corwin amendment, and that makes it even more certain that slavery would always be preserved in the USA for the indefinite future.
So the claim that they went to war to preserve something that was never threatened, and was indeed signed away at the very beginning of the conflict, is simply a deliberate lie meant to justify all the bloodshed, carnage and trampling of our constitutional government.
Hostilities began with the firing on Fort Sumter.
Hostilities began when Anderson, in the middle of the night, ordered his men to spike and burn all the cannons in fort Moultrie, kidnap a ship's captain by force, and compel him to carry his men to unoccupied and under construction Fort Sumter, and then expel all the workmen working there, with the town waking up the next morning having cannons under a hostile force threatening them.
Anderson's seizure of Fort Sumter was the first hostile act of the war.
The North, in 1861, fought to preserve the Union.
They didn't have a right to force people to remain part of their corrupt system. The idea that you could force others to serve you is the same foundation on which slavery is built.
By the end of the war the abolition of slavery had been added as an ultimate goal.
This is about the closest thing you've said to being accurate so far, but still not quite accurate. Clearly they did not march any armies into the Union slave states to abolish their slavery. So no, it wasn't the ultimate goal of the war. The ultimate goal of the war was to force subjugation on states that had dared defy the corruptocracy running Washington DC for the betterment of the Northeastern elites who are still running it today.
Haven't you noticed? We had an *INSURRECTION* in Washington DC on January 6th!
Same liars lying then as are lying now. Northeastern media liars still doing their jobs 150 years later.
>>If the war was over slavery then Lincoln should have freed them at the beginning of the war, he did not.<<
Couple of factoids revisionist historians disregard:
>Lincoln once supported, among others, the recolonization of the negro to the Caribbean and or Africa because they felt they would not be able to assimilate into society.
>Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley in 1862 stating that his primary goal was preservation of the union, not to destroy or preserve slavery.
acting under secret orders directly from Lincoln, we can only conclude that it was Lincoln’s intent that Porter start a war in Pensacola.
Cite a credible source for your “secret orders directly from Lincoln” claim?
Forget Sumter, it surrendered.
What would have Davis done with Pensacola. It was fully manned, equipped, and armed.
He could Let a Foreign power occupy a portion of the Confederate States of America or take action to eliminate that situation.
Take California. Only 3 Ev
The split between Douglas and Breckinridge gave Lincoln California’s three.
California
Margin for Lincoln 0.61%
Lincoln 32.32%
Douglas 31.71%
Breckinridge 28.35%
Bell. 7.60%
but if people didn’t want drugs, the sellers would have to work selling used cars or hamburgers.
The people wanted the slaves, they bought the slave. Had they decided they could work hard and prosper on their own, then the need for slaves would have been greatly reduced.
Same in Oregon. So California’s ; and Oregon’s 3 make 7
Oregon
Margin for Lincoln1.83%
Lincoln 36.20%
Douglas 27.99%
Breckinridge 34.37%
Bell 1.44%
We need to revise that…
The ABUSIVE woman tells her honorable husband she is divorcing him. She has been beating and raping the children. She grabs a cast iron skillet (cannons) and beats him on the arm (fort Sumpter).
Etc. etc.
So the question is what would a unified party have done in the key states of NY, Ohio, Ind, I’ll and Conn.
States Lincoln was just over 50%.
We just need to knock of 21 to get Lincoln below 152 after Org and Cal.
Ohio’s 23 at 51.2% Lincoln would be enough.
Ind 13 and I’ll 11 at 51.09% and 50.69% would also have been enough.
Or NY 35 - a tougher hurdle at 53.7%… but perhaps doable if your party is not split in 2. Douglas did not win many states, but he came in second in a lot.
If the democrats had stood behind Douglas - they could have won.
Its Hypocritical to state that only the south had a caste system. The caste system was very strong in the northeast: There were the bankers and corporate barons, followed by the merchants, then the lowly recent-immigrants and indentured servants. The recent immigrants and their children worked long hours in sweat shops and other labor intensive jobs. Later, Chinese immigrants and their families were used as low-wage laborers in the far west. Native Americans were being pushed westward.
The stratification in the south was bad as well. There were a very few but highly-influential plantation barons, a sizeable population with only a few slaves, a significant group of poor whites with no slaves, native Americans, and of course the unfortunate slaves. Even the slaves had their own caste system.
I didn’t say that only the south had a caste system.
Dude... get a life, please. The wall of text was edited because the text editor created the wall of text. So get off that horse you rode in on and stf up.
Nope...not gonna "stf up"
Double check your post using the preview button. And don't be a jerk when someone offers you advice.
No, I have always maintained that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about preserving the Union because the South Seceded because of State’s rights. You need to reread what I wrote and don’t try to put words into my mouth. Lincoln’s stance was clear as he stated it in the letter to the NYT editor.
Madison states that he was careful to not include the word slave and n-gro in the Declaration and Constitution that conflict was inevitable.
Because the institution of slavery was so prevalent leading up to the Civil War, people conflate that institution, economic, with the moral, slavery. However, what people give Lincoln credit for, freeing the slaves, was never his intention, even though he thought the institution to be wrong.
Lincoln has been quoted before writing the emancipation proclamation as saying the spilling of blood to keep the Union intact would be in vain if the slaves were not freed.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a Presidential Proclamation and not a Congressional one. This was only possible through Presidential War Powers and it did not free ALL slaves but only referred to the slaves in the South that were being used to fight the North. And that is the biggest myth about the Emmancipation Proclamation that it freed all slaves when it did not. It only freed those slaves that the South was using against the North. The Emancipation Proclamation was rejected in Delaware. But Lincoln was head strong and used the War Powers to enact it. This occurred in September 1862. The war was goning on for over a year at this point. In the August 1862 letter to the NYT editor, which I referenced, Lincoln was clear that if freeing the slaves was not beneficial to the preservation of the Union he would not do it. The focus was clearly on preserving the Union.
The South seceded from the Union because of laws being enacted that encroached on State’s Rights to make their own judgement on how the state were to conduct business and trade. The Federal Government was encroaching on this . One of the most common fights is the battle between the authority and power of the State versus the Federal Government. You can actually see this fight being played out today with the election laws trying to be passed in Congress and the individual states passing integrity laws. The most famous fight between states and feds in the modern era is the Roe versus Wade fight. There are other example like education etc.
So please before you begin to put words in my mouth again, you need the entire post.
Hey are you a grammar Nazi or what? STF up.
If you notice I already made corrections to it, so the only one be an arsehole here is you. Your advice was not asked for and not warranted. So again go away and STFU because you are making yourself look bad.
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.