Posted on 06/14/2006 5:58:12 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
face it "Mr SB", you've been lied to for your entire life by the LEFT, who make this stuff up, because they HATE dixie & her people.
free dixie,sw
Quite possibly. I suppose it depends on the replacement. If Mr. Lincoln had recognized Grant's talents early on and moved him east, then I suspect you're right. But replacing McClellan early on with, say, John Pope wouldn't have made much of a difference, IMHO.
Indeed. Although it's very possible Hood would have blown it even if he'd had superior forces in every engagement.
he was a good junior officer & a miserable excuse for a flag officer.
despite my many years of commissioned service, i wouldn't have done even as adequate a job as GEN Hood did. he tried hard; he simply didn't have what it took.
the VAST majority of serving military officers are NOT suited to be "flags".
free dixie,sw
Not according to the Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of the acts in Ford v Surget. The Davis regime had it's own version called the The Sequestration Act passed in August 1861. That authorized the permanent seizure of the real and personal property of "alien enemies" within the confederacy and affected those who remained loyal to the union. I guess those were constitutional because Davis said they were. No fine line needed by the Davis regime where legal precedents were concerned, or a supreme court either.
So what you are saying, in this blatant tu quoque of a post, is that conditions in Illinois were bad. In fact one might say that conditions were almost as bad for blacks in Illinois as they were in Virginia or every other southern state. I wouldn't go that far since conditions in the south were much worse, but you always were one for extremes. In any case does that accurately sum up the point you are trying to make?
Similar to laws in effect in the southern states much later. When they didn't outlaw free blacks from entering completely, that is.
Or Burnside or Hooker for that matter.
I've never really understood the process that resulted in the selection of those commanders (including Pope). I understand that there were political considerations that Mr. Lincoln had to factor in to his decisions. But it seems to me that the Army of the Potomac had quite a few very capable corps commanders that might have made good army commanders. Hancock comes to mind, or Reynolds.
When Pope and Burnside were selected, Hancock and Reynolds were both still brigade and division commanders. Pope was selected on the basis of his success on the Mississippi, one suspects Burnside was selected simply because he wasn't McClellan or a McClellan insider.
Ok, I understand that Hancock & Reynolds weren't yet corps commanders through the commands of Pope and Burnside. But what about during Hooker's and Meade's? Which brings up an interesting thought: would either Hancock or Reynolds have followed up at Gettysburg with a more vigorous pursuit than Meade's? I tend to think Hancock might have.
Supposedly Reynolds was offered command of the Army of the Potomac before Meade but turned it down. Meade was senior to Hancock and had a solid, if unspectacular, record. He was a good choice for the army and had he been in command at Chancellorsville the outcome might not have been as disasterous as it was. Hooker was a puzzle. He was a good corps commander before and after Chancellorsville and on paper there was no reason why he was a bad choice as army commander.
It's possible that either man would have been more aggressive after Gettysburg but they may not. After Gettysburg the army was worn out, about a third were casualties, artillery and wagons were pretty beaten up. It's possible that they may have let Lee escape as well.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Were there racist laws and dicriminatory legislation in the North? Yes. Were conditions up there worse than in the South? Not by a long shot.
Ford addressed the legality of the Sequestration Act passed during the Lincon regime. The act applies to existing civilian debt owed to an enemy - not government/military seizures made during war.
[T]here could be no doubt of the right of the army to appropriate any property there, although belonging to private individuals, which was necessary for its support or convenient for its use. This was a belligerent right, which was not extinguished by the occupation of the country, although the necessity for its exercise was thereby lessened. However exempt from seizure on other grounds private property there may have been, it was always subject to be appropriated, when required by the necessities or convenience of the army, though the owner of property taken in such case may have had a just claim against the government for indemnity. ...From Mitchell v Harmony:We fully agree with the presiding justice of the Circuit Court in the doctrine that the military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs, and that he is no friend to the Republic who advocates the contrary. The established principle of every free people is, that the law shall alone govern; and to it the military must always yield. We do not controvert the doctrine of Mitchell v. Harmony, reported in the 13th of Howard; on the contrary, we approve it.
Justice Field, Dow v. Johnson, 100 US 158, 168, 169, (1880)
There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner. Chief Justice Taney, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 How. 115, 134 (1851)Before and after the war, the courts held that property cannot be taken by the goverment without compensation for said property (see Amendment 5).
they still are the most PREJUDICED of all in the country.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
I don't know, are there any that you didn't kill and bury in a dike somewhere?
NOW it seems to me that we should "turn the lights on" in the north & watch they BIGOTS up there scatter, like the cockroaches they are.
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.