Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[fortheDeclaration]

That one number exceeds the other is not the crucial issue. It is when the disparity is almost 10 to 1. As I previously noted, you would have to demonstrate that each confederate arrest was 10 times as bad as each union arrest on average to reverse the trend indicated by those numbers, and that falls well in the realm of statistical impossibility. Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000? Any way you look at that question, you'd have to demonstrate that the northern arrests were 10 times more defensible than the southern arrests on average. That is simply too big of a burden for you to overcome no matter how many ways you recount it, Mr. Kerry.

You are assuming that the arrests themselves were wrong, but they may not have been.

There may have been justification for many of them.

Now, Bensel says that the North was more severe in its handling of the suspension, but maybe they were justified in being so.

It may have been that rather then 38,000 being too high, 4,000 was too low, and that the South did not make enough arrests and therefore weakened their own war effort. The first responsiblity both Lincoln and Davis had was to win the war that they were in, and getting control of illegal activities in their own areas was a major part of that responsibilty.

It would seem that Davis did not have enough power to accomplish the job given to him, at least as far as the Writ was concerned.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Southern-Confederate ringleaders of instigating civil war, resulting in over half a million dead Americans should have had their right to vote revoked for no less then 25 years, in conjunction with being permanently bared from holding public office. Once again benevolence to traitors was a massive mistake.

Amen!

[4CJ]

Let us say the Confederate side had gained victory and they were in a position to dictate national policy. Do expect everyone to buy a Confederate regimé would have informed the elected leaders of the Union the following:

Dear clueless: If the Confederacy had won they certainly would NOT have attempted to dictate to the Union anything - the Confederate States of America seceded. Doh!

Do you recall something termed 'Jim Crow?'

Nope, I wasn't alive then.

Once again benevolence to traitors was a massive mistake.

Absent their constitutionally guaranteed right to trial, to have witnesses &c, I take it that you are once again advocating the extermination of Confederates.

Are you in agreement with the return to segregation in the Deep South if that condition was the only method of a modern 'Confederate separation' from the United States?

Of course NOT. No one here is clamoring for segregation, but it does appear that you habitually project your fixations on others.

[4CJ]

The Southern-Confederate ringleaders of instigating civil war

War would have been averted if Lincoln had not invaded, but he had to attack to claim the impost revenues, as he stated in his inaugural speech.

[4CJ]

Please refrain from profanity.

[fortheDeclaration]

Thanks.

The hardback was 100$!

I am glad they had a used paperback to buy!

[fortheDeclaration]

Like the 18-month long bombardment of Charleston civilians. Oops! Union forces did that to Confederate civilians. My bad.

They could have simply surrendered.

[GOPcapitalist]

Is everyone in here not parroting the pro-Confederate position 'commies' as well?

Your illiteracy is showing again, Espinola. As I said, McPherson, Foner, and Wlat are all commies. That much is documented. I can't speak for anybody else and certainly hope that others aren't communists among you, however given the track record of unsavory charactors to populate your ranks, the discovery of another would not surprise me.

[M. Espinola]

After reading your comments maybe GITMO should be expanded for additional customers.

[GOPcapitalist]

The following is from Farber's work, Lincoln's Constitution

Farber's work has not been well received in the community of scholarly peers.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Farber104.htm

To cite it as an authoritative or unbiased source is accordingly misleading and unjustified. At its best it is a heavily tilted legal brief for the Lincoln defense team. At its worst it is a sloppily written low grade panegyric.

[M. Espinola]

I hope you and the others living down there in Plantation Land are cognizant your Neo-Confederate fantasies will ((never)) become reality?

[GOPcapitalist]

You are assuming that the arrests themselves were wrong, but they may not have been.

Tis no matter of assumption. Even the most partisan Lincoln sycophant will acknowledge that at least some of his arrests were unjustified.

There may have been justification for many of them.

Then that is your burden to prove, not mine.

[GOPcapitalist]

I profess no fantasies, Espinola. Some of your friends around here and favorite historians, however, are indeed marxists though.

[rustbucket]

Recall, successionist extremists used the cannons of the city of Charleston to fire on FT Sumter, a United States fort.

???? The 1861 bombardment of Fort Sumter came from the various forts and artillery at Fort Moultrie, Morris Island, Point Johnson, Sullivan's Island, Cummons Point, etc., not from cannon in the city (if there were any in the city at that time). Crowds of spectators lined the Battery in Charleston watching the distant battle.

Two big cannon having an effective range of five miles were placed on the Battery in 1863, but the first one blew up on the first shot. I don't know how effective those cannon ever were. Fort Sumter was in Confederate hands then anyway. There had been cannon on the Battery for the War of 1812, but a modern painting I've seen shows no guns on the Battery in 1860.

I took a walking tour of Charleston last fall. The guide showed us pictures of houses that were standing then that are still standing now. We did walk the Battery in that tour. The carriage tours were better though. More humor and easier on the feet.

I'll let your 'extremist' remark pass because you don't know any better.

[fortheDeclaration]

I want to see the evidence by which he came to that conclusion. I've already given you several solid examples ranging from qualitative historical events to the scope of the 2 suspensions to statistical evidence, which tilts overwhelmingly against the north. There comes a point when further inquiries for evidence reach a point of slothfulness in which a strongly demonstrated fact is denied for no other reason than the denier's dislike for that fact. You crossed that point several dozen posts ago.

I think there is a problem with your mental health.

What is the matter?

You don't want me to read Bansel for myself?

The problem is that you have assumed that suspending the Writ is a bad thing.

Based on that overly simplistic assumption, you then conclude that the Union did 38,000 bad thing to the Souths 4,000.

But, the suspension of the Writ, while it may have been illegal, may not have been the worse action, a far worse action would have been to allow traitors to operate behind your lines.

He might be correct in his opinion. If he is correct (and you have offered absolutely no credible reason to believe he isn't) it is not opinion but fact. Either the north was worse or the south was worse. It can only be one of two things, and all the evidence is pointing at the north.

Again, you are assuming the suspension of the Writ was always wrong.

Given recent events with courts, I am not at this moment feeling any great sympathy for them. Whatever idiocy emerges from the courts last week has absolutely no bearing on an unrelated case from 140 years ago. Unless you believe Ted Kennedy, not even the most partisan and justified critic of the courts today in Congress would ever advocate doing today what Lincoln did to Judge Merrick. Not even to George Greer, who actually did something wrong unlike Merrick.

What we saw recently is simply a failure of the two other branches of Government to reign in an out of control judicary.

[fortheDeclaration]

Somehow I knew you were going to say that!

LOL!

[rustbucket]

Awwwww. Poor babies!

Yes, there were indeed children killed or wounded in the bombardment. Here is a list of some of the casualties I've found (posted to you before).

Mrs. Hawthorne

In the afternoon, between four and five o’clock, the enemy again opened on the city. Sixteen shells were fired. One white woman, a Mrs. Hawthorne, was severely wounded by a fragment of shell striking her on the left side of the head. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 2, 1863)

Mrs. Hawthorne, the woman who was wounded Tuesday afternoon, was still alive up to seven o’clock Wednesday evening. Dr. Frost is the attending physician. Very little hopes were entertained for her recovery, as (the left side?) of the head is fractured, and the ----- (can’t read). (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 3, 1863)

Church in danger

Whereas the Congregation of the St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church are prevented from worshipping in their Sanctuary in consequence of the missiles of destruction which are being thrown into their vicinity by our remorseless and infidel foe; Therefore, Resolved, That the above named Congregation be most earnestly and affectionately invited to worship with us in the Morris-street Lutheran Church, as long as their necessities or inclination may require. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 19, 1863)

Firemen, William Knighton, Miss Plane, and others

Charleston, Dec 25 – The enemy commenced shelling the city last night, keeping up a steady fire which is still going on at 9 o’clock this morning. A fire broke out about 9 o’clock, destroying some ten or twelve buildings, and causing a few casualties. Heavy firing is heard in the direction of Stone. The shelling of the city has continued with only an interval of an hour at noon. One white man was mortally and a white woman slightly wounded by shells.
Three firemen were badly wounded by the falling of walls of burnt buildings, and some eight or ten others were slightly wounded. Affairs at Sumter remain quiet. (The Memphis Daily Appeal [Atlanta, GA]. December 28, 1863)

The gunners always increased their rate of fire when they saw a blaze, but in spite of the shells bursting near their engine, the firemen worked uninterruptedly. Four firemen and four soldiers were injured in fighting the fire, and a little further up the street, an 83-year old man had his leg shot off at the knee. It was a memorable Christmas night… (The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton, p 257-258, December 25, 1863)

An old gentleman named William Knighton, 83 years of age, was sitting by the fire on his hearth, had his right leg shot off below the knee, His sister-in-law -- a Miss Plane – also sitting by the fire, had her right foot severely crushed by a fragment of shell. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 28, 1863).

Mr. William Knighton mentioned in our report of casualties caused by the enemy’s fire on Friday, has since died from the effects of his wounds. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 29, 1863)

Miss Plane, the lady reported as injured from a shell on Christmas morning, died on Wednesday from the effects of the injuries received. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 31, 1863, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Jan 17, 1864)

German man wounded

One man, a German, whose name we could not learn, was wounded in the right hand by a stone from the middle of the street, torn up by a shell on Wednesday morning. (Charleston Daily Courier, Jan 14, 1864).

School Children

The St. Philip Street school-house remained untouched. A frame house adjoining it has nevertheless been hit by one of the shells, and fears were entertained for the safety of the school-house. Shells were flying round it constantly during the bombardment. The teachers, however, still keep the school open and the little girls and boys attended it in great numbers very regularly. (From The New York Herald, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Feb 12, 1864)

Mrs. Kennedy

One white woman, a Mrs. Kennedy, was seriously wounded in the leg about three o’clock Thursday morning. She was asleep when a shell entered her house and in passing through, shattered the bed posts, the pieces striking her on the leg, fracturing the bone. It was believed that amputation would be necessary. (Charleston Courier as reported in The Memphis Daily Appeal [Atlanta, GA]. March 8, 1864)

Nine killed. Men, women and children wounded

There have been lately two large fires in Charleston, caused by our shells. Deserters say the city is now divided into two districts, viz: 'in range' and 'out of range,' and that no other expression is used. Nine persons were killed a few nights since, and a large number wounded, including men, women, and children, and twelve homes burned to the ground. (Washington Republican, Feb 26, 1864, as reported in The Daily Picayune March 11, 1864)

Firemen injured

…the engine of the Phoenix Company was struck by a shell and blown to atoms, injuring several firemen (The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton, p 259, from Schirmer Diary, May 13, 1864)

Colored woman killed

The firing since our last has been about as usual. Eighty-six shots have been fired from six P. M. Monday evening to six P. M. Tuesday, at Fort Sumter, and twenty-nine shots at the city, most of which were time fuse shells. A colored woman, named Adstine Rostersats (? hard to read the name) was mortally wounded about 12 M. Tuesday, by the fragment of a fuse shell, and died about four o’clock Tuesday evening. (Charleston Daily Courier, Aug 31, 1864).

Child’s arm shattered

Forty-two shells have been fired at the city since our last report. A child’s arm was badly shattered by one of these missiles. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 2, 1864)

Man and two children wounded

In the city three persons, one man and two children, were wounded by pieces of shell. One child was severely wounded. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 9, 1864)

Colored man killed

A colored barber named William, was struck in the head by a Parrott shell Friday morning and instantly killed. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 10, 1864)

Men and women wounded

During the twenty-four hours ending six o’clock Wednesday evening eighty-eight shots were reported fired into the city. A number of casualties occurred, but mostly from flying bricks or splinters.

Mr. A. W. Ladd was severely and dangerously wounded in the left shoulder by a fragment of shell, which exploded in the building where he was writing. Three other young men in the same room and building as Mr. Ladd, very narrowly escaped being killed. The shell passed through the desk of one (Mr. C. J. Porcher) just as he had risen to close a shutter of the window against the heat of the sun. It went under the desk, passing through the legs of Mr. W. Lambert, breaking the leg of the chair and leaving Mr. W with only a slight bruise on the ankle.

Another shell, which exploded in a building, wounded four females of the family of Mr. John Burkmyer, one of them seriously, breaking her collar bone, besides inflicting several slight bruises.

A man by the name of Collins, a laborer, had his leg taken off Wednesday evening by the explosion of a shell in the building in which he resided. (all from the Charleston Daily Courier of Sept 29, 1864)

[fortheDeclaration]

One book review by a pro-Southern historian is not a community of scholars.

However, the reviewer does say,

Beyond his general approach and his choice of sources, what is one to make of Farber's attitude toward his subject? It is generally even-handed. Thus, in summarizing Lincoln's constitutional record, Farber writes, "Although Lincoln cannot fairly be accused of dictatorship, he did stretch the power of the presidency to its outer reaches. He also authorized unprecedented exercises of government power over individuals: arrest and detention without military process, trial by military tribunals, and whole-sale destruction of individual property (most famously in Sherman's march through Georgia). After decades in which nearly everyone had agreed that slavery in the South was beyond the reach of federal power, he ordered the freeing of millions of slaves with a stroke of the presidential pen. It is little wonder that the constitutionality of his actions has been hotly disputed since almost the day he took office" (pp.20-21).

Farber displays great understanding of the extraordinarily difficult situation President Lincoln faced, and this prompts him to judge him less harshly than extreme libertarians sometimes have done (p.175).

In his Afterword, Farber considers "The Lessons of History." "It was," he writes, "Lincoln's character … that brought the Union through the war with the Constitution intact" (p.200). Here, Farber assumes much of what was at issue during Lincoln's presidency: that the Union was simply a territorial unit, not a group of sovereign states voluntarily joined; that the Constitution was what Lincoln said it was, not what his opponents to the south held it to be. Farber's assumptions on these scores shape most of the rest of his book. In sum, LINCOLN'S CONSTITUTION is a partisan work, more a lawyer's brief for the Lincoln administration to be argued before a contemporary American court or group of academics than an exercise in historiography. It is none the less interesting for that.

[lentulusgracchus]

Then I'm happy to know that you condemn the 14th Amendment as illegal due to it's revocation of Confederate voting rights.

We've had him figured all wrong. He's been so incensed about the unilateral, ex post facto, never-ratified abrogation of ex-Confederates' voting rights, that he's been trying to talk us into bad-mouthing Lincoln and the Radicals.

How could I have been so wrong about our Roxbury Rebel?

Bet he's got three or four Confederate flags at home -- all different patterns.

[fortheDeclaration]

You are assuming that the arrests themselves were wrong, but they may not have been. Tis no matter of assumption. Even the most partisan Lincoln sycophant will acknowledge that at least some of his arrests were unjustified.

Now, I didn't say all could be justified now did I?

Even Lincoln would admit some of the arrests were unjustified, but he never denied the need to do so.

There may have been justification for many of them. Then that is your burden to prove, not mine.

I feel no burden to prove anything.

The right to suspend the Writ is in the Constitution.