I present "King Jeff the First"
Posted on 12/22/2002 7:56:45 AM PST by GeneD
after the famous/infamous caning, Brooks received numerous new canes from fellow congresscritters & NOT only from southrons!
free dixie,sw
SAD but TRUE.
free dixie,sw
President Davis agreed that NO TROOPS from either side enter Alexandria and THEN lincoln occupied the city the very next day, saying that he couldn't in "good conscience" agree to do anything with the "so-called president of the traitorous".
face it, NS, you worship at the feet of a tyrant,liar,cheap politician (who was no better than wee willie klintoon) & WAR CRIMINAL. nothing more,nothing less.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Not me. I don't think much of Jefferson Davis at all.
free dixie,sw
of all the people of the southland, the blacks suffered MOST of the abuse, as the damnyankee horde failed to punish acts of violence, committed against "persons of colour", whether "bond or freepersons". WAR CRIMES were an INTENTIONAL PART of the damnyankees plan to win the war against the CSA.
that is the uncomfortable TRUTH!
free dixie,sw
that definitely pushes the "GAG" reflex!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
I present "King Jeff the First"
Omigod! Whoop! -- There it is! "No controlling legal authority!!!!
N-S, you are a scream! I couldn't have backed into that one if I'd tried!
The Silver Shirts were also very fond of displaying American flags.
I think it was Drew Pearson who observed acidulously of an isolationist rally in the prewar period, that there were more American flags present than Americans.
Thanks for taking the trouble to type out the political cartoon's legends, which I couldn't read. Pretty good cartoon, for 1861.
"Popular sovereignty" got into trouble with the Free Soilers and northern Whigs first and foremost. Lincoln cut his teeth on the doctrine, debating Douglas for the first time on "popular sovereignty" and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, as a sort of platform (for Lincoln) on which to run for the U.S. Senate. Lincoln argued against popular sovereignty, and for outright prohibition of slavery in the Territories, on the analogy of the Northwest Ordinance.
I have no idea how you managed to twist my comments into that, but few of the conclusions you come to really surprise me any more. On the contrary, there was a controlling authority in the United States in the form of a working Supreme Court. Many of Lincoln's actions were taken to the court for judgement. In many cases the court approved of the actions, in others it did not. I do believe that Lincoln's decision should have been taken to the full court, and had the emergency lasted more than a few weeks I'm sure it would have. But the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln only lasted a few weeks.
It was Jefferson Davis, as you well know, who would brook no possible interference in the actions he took. His contempt for the judicial system was well known, otherwise why would he have refused to establish a confederate supreme court to begin with, in spite of the fact that his constitution required one? Do you have an answer for that puzzle?
Can you name one?
Here are the names of 40 loyal Texans, hanged at Gainesville, Tx, in 1862, --just because they were loyal to Old Glory.
Nathaniel Clark, Wernell, Richard Martin, Grandpaw Burch, H.J. Esmond, Ward, Evans, Clem Woods, Wolsey, Manon, Leffel, A. B. McNeice, Wash Moirris, Wesley Morris, Thomas Floyd (shot), John Crisp, James Powers, Rama Dye, J. Dawson, Wiley, K. Morris, Barnes, Milburn, W. Anderson, Gross, Ward,, Dr. Johnson, Childs, Senir, Childs, Junior, Hampton, Locke, Foster, Fields, D. Anderson, D. Taylor, R. Manton, Jones, carmichael, Henry Cochran.
Walt
Where does the "Law of Land Warfare" say that? Where can we find this in the "Law of Land Warfare" in the 1860's?
Walt
"The North had a potential manpower superiority of more than three to one (counting only white men) and Union armed forces had an actual superiority of two to one during most of the war. In economic resources and logistical capacity the northern advantage was even greater. Thus, in this explanation, the Confederacy fought against overwhelming odds; its defeat was inevitable. But this explanation has not satisfied a good many analysts. History is replete with examples of peoples who have won or defended their independence against greater odds: the Netherlands against the Spain of Philip II; Switzerland against the Hapsburg empire; the American rebels of 1776 against mighty Britain; North Vietnam against the United States of 1970. Given the advantages of fighting on the defensive in its own territory with interior lines in which stalemate would be victory against a foe who must invade, conquer, occupy, and destroy the capacity to resist, the odds faced by the South were not formidable.
Rather, as another category of interpretations has it, internal divisions fatally weakened the Confederacy: the state-rights conflict between certain govern on and the Richmond government; the disaffection of non-slaveholders from a rich man's war and poor man's fight; libertarian opposition to necessary measures such as conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus; the lukewarm commitment to the Confederacy by quondam Whigs and unionists; the disloyalty of slaves who defected to the enemy whenever they had a chance; growing doubts among slaveowners themselves about the justice of their peculiar institution and their cause. "So the Confed- eracy succumbed to internal rather than external causes," according to numerous historians. The South suffered from a "weakness in morale," a "loss of the will to fight." The Confederacy did not lack "the means to continue the struggle," but "the will to do so." --BCF, P. 855
His sources:
Richard E. Beringer, Herman Hattaway, Archer Jones, and William N. Stilll jr., Why the South Lost the Civil War (Athens, Ga., 1986), 439, 5S; Kenneth M. Stampp, The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War (New York, 1980),255 Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy (Collier Books ed., New York, 1961), 250
My emphasis
And this was interesting:
"At the commencement of the withdrawal of the army from the lines on the night of the 2nd [of April 1865], it began to disintegrate, and straggling from the ranks increased up to the surrender on the 9th. On that day, as previously reported, there were only seven thousand eight hundred and ninety-two (7892) effective infantry. During the night, when the surrender became known, more than ten thousand men came in, as reported to me by the Chief Commissary of the Army. During the succeeding days stragglers continued to give themselves up, so that on the 12th April, according to the rolls of those paroled, twenty six thousand and eighteen (26,018) officers and men had surrendered. Men who had left the ranks on the march, and crossed James River, returned and gave themselves up, and many have since come to Richmond and surrendered. I have given these details that your Excellency might know the state of feeling which existed in the army ......" Letter from Lee to Davis dated 20 April 1865, Document 1006, in Dowdy (ed.), THE WARTIME PAPERS OF ROBERT E. LEE (NY: Da Capo Press).
And how about this:
"The people lacked 'patriotic devotion to the South,' he [Pollard] complained. ' Only the utmost rigor of conscription,' he argued, 'forced a majority of it's troops in the field; . . . half of these were disposed to desert on the first opportunities; and . . . the demands for military service were cheated in a way and to an extent unexampled in the case of any brave and honorable nation engaged in a war for its own existence.' 'We have,' Pollard pointed out as proof, 'the remarkable fact that in one year the Confederate States Attorney in Richmond tried eighteen hundred cases in that city on writs of habeas corpus for relief from conscription!'" p. 43-44, Southern Rights, Neely
The secesh could have won the war; they just flubbed it.
Walt
From where? Uncle Ed? Show us your sources for that?
free dixie,sw
all total there was at least 92 (nobody is SURE whether or not some of the victims may have escaped-92 bodies were recovered & buried by neighbors,after the WAR CRIMINALS left the family farm.) women, children & elderly men (who were too old to bear arms for the southland. ALL the men & boys over the age of 12,who were capable of military service, were in the CSA.), who were tortured,robbed,assaulted & finally murdered by a group of WI & IL cavalry during a 3-day drunken orgy in 1864.
evidently they were abused & murdered by the "filth that came down from the north" ONLY because they were poor, American Indians & because the perpertrators KNEW that they would NOT be punished for their WAR CRIMES. in point of fact, the crimes against my family members were not even investigated by the yankee provost marshal.
the commission of WAR CRIMES was a PLANNED part of the overall damnyankee war strategy. any SERIOUS reading of wartime provost marshal documents of the yankee army will confirm that fact.
free dixie,sw
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.