Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck
However if one truly wants to make such a big deal out of what we call the armed conflict which occurred in America from 1861 to 1865 , and if its historical accuracy and honesty that one truly seeks, then I think Douglas Southall Freeman is, perhaps, the truest to historical accuracy in coining the proper term . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
I live in Missouri which bore the brunt of 4-plus years of guerrilla warfare that devastated the border area and resulted in terrible suffering for the civilian population. There is no reason to believe that the same wouldn't have happened to the other Confederate states.
Yep.
Ok. It is 9:30 AM, Sunday morning here, so let me get back to watching the Colts/Patriots game live, by streaming on my computer. I have to get up at 2 AM tonight, to see Sunday’s games live. Later bro.
later!
So.......say you’re living in a state that’s split about evenly between libs and conservatives. And your state is doing very well economically. Including yourself and the area where you live. Then some commies take over the state by a simple majority, and you think it would be perfectly fine if they split off from the rest of the country and formed a commie nation. Are you serious or just yanking my chain?
Lee was asked to do that and responded by saying he didn’t want to be a bushwhacker the rest of his life. Certainly, the South could have used guerilla warfare. But to what end? I think both sides were pretty sick of the war after four years. And Southerners were affected a lot more adversely than Northerners. I think most other Southern officers, like Lee and Longstreet, knew that a prolonged guerilla war would only make things a lot worse and accepted the end.
Two may vehemently disagree, but what matters is who throws the first punch.
The Republicans did NOT support slavery and in fact were constituted around the notion that it was not an institution that should continue.
I am aware there were elements of pro and anti slavery to be found in all areas of the nation.
I’m serious. Even if a state is 51% moonbat, do you think they’d immediately vote to secede? Would conservatives? You’d have to be pretty PO’d.
I’m guessing that it would take a 66% moonbat majority to secede, and if they did, wouldn’t that be fair, especially with free emigration?
I think this would conform with the principal of subsidiarity.
Mayland was a separate nation in the Appalachians. Mayland seceded from the Confederacy immediately after the southern states seceded from the Union.
Proposition: States (that is, ruling regimes) have powers; private individuals do (or don’t) have rights, according to their ruling legal document(s).
I was thinking to engender some dialogue, but . . . guess not.
“At this point, what difference does it really make?”
Where did you learn history from, “Ripley’s Believe It Or Not’’?.
I agree.
We’re putting the cart before the horse. Why do you think states have the right to secede? Nowhere in the constitution does it give them the right. Something as serious as dissolving the union would have something explicit written wouldn’t you think?
We seceded from England, didn’t we, “ after a long train of abuses”?
We used to be the United States. Now we’re USA. I don’t know if the Constitution says anything, one way or the other. Certainly the South thought it had the right to secede.
No, we didn’t secede from the crown. We openly rebelled against their authority.
I was thinking to engender some dialogue, but . . . guess not.
Is it not true that individuals do (or don't) have rights whether they are private individuals or not?
Is it not true that some rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not dependent on ruling legal documents? Admittedly, there are some rights dependent on ruling legal documents, just not all of them.
If the above is true and you're defining a State as a ruling regime (which I'm not sure I would), and a ruling regime consists of individuals as it must, would not the State have rights because the State is a ruling regime which is individuals who have rights?
Interesting.....
First time I’ve heard about these Maryland issues.
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.