Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
Men of the valley. Citizen soldiers. I am here at the order of General Robert E. Lee, commanding all Virginia forces. On April 15th of this year of our Lord 1862, Simon Cameron, the secretary of war of the United States sent a telegram to our governor to raise three regiments of infantry to be sent to assist in suppressing the Southern Confederacy.
Governor Letcher's answer is well known to you, but perhaps not his words. His wire to Washington stated: "You have chosen to inaugurate civil war. Having done so, we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the Lincoln administration has exhibited toward the South."
Two days later the Virginia legislature were voting for secession. Just as we would not send any of our soldiers to march in other states and tyrannize other people so will we never allow the armies of others to march into our states and tyrannize our people.
Like many of you, indeed most of you, I've always been a Union man. It is not with joy or with a light heart that many have welcomed secession. Had our neighbors to the North practiced a less bellicose form of persuasion this day might not have come.
But that day has been thrust upon us like it was thrust upon our ancestors. The Lincoln administration required us to raise three regiments. Tell them we have done so.
Dismissed.
Among these men who took up their arms to defend their homes, there is no dishonor and no treason. They have passed onto their children this legacy - that there is something worth living for and, if need be, worth dying for.
It is a legacy that I take to myself gladly and remember always.
And in defeat, they did not lose their honor or glory. In fact, it has been heaped upon them by all us who understand why they fought and will always remember them as heroes.
"Strike the tent."
Just one day, it would be a pleasure to not hear how Americans are evil; to not hear how much we suck, to not hear we are traitors.
Please.
Virtually everyone here at FreeRepublic is an honorable, conservative patriot....and you know that.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)--could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive no one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want."
- Lysander Spooner*, "No Treason" 1870
Are you aware of ANY post by stand that could be called "accurate"?
Sometimes Truth is not pleasant. Of course, some whose ancestors were Traitors might not like it but I don't particularly care it doesn't change the Truth. Some of my ancestors were involved in the same Treason but I don't care to excuse, justify or ennoble it.
That is a great commentary. Much appreciated. Thanks!
"Virtually everyone here at FreeRepublic is an honorable, conservative patriot....and you know that."
Virtually everyone is but not all. I call no one a "patriot" who spends time attacking those who fought to prevent this nation from being dismembered, who spend time slandering some of our greatest leaders like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan etc. Patriots do not swallow whole the lies of the Slaver Ruling Class of the South which tried to destroy the United States of America. Patriots do not rave insanely about "Damn Yankees" and other such inanities.
Why would a current day Patriot be upset when the truth is told about those who tried to destroy the United States in order to perpetrate petty tyranny?
Are you in Israel now?
Why, on earth, should I have any conversation with you....or you with me?
Lincoln did not believe there were no States' Rights. Nor would there have been any appreciable increase in the power of the tiny federal government had the RAT Rebellion not broken out.
Your quote also means Hitler agreed with Madison. Is that absurd enough for you?
For the South the War was 99% about slavery unlike the North for which it was 100% about preserving the Union. And the South did ATTACK federal installations, property and personnel of the United States.
There was NO "massive" tariff. In fact, the tariff was almost as old as the country and was less than it had been in the past. Midwest farmers were as affected by the tariff as was the South. It may have been 0.01% of the reason for the Slaver attack but was principlely merely an excuse. It should not be forgotten that until 1861 the government was almost always under the control of either Southerners or Southern sympathizers.
Sherman did not slaughter civilians and you are also very mistaken to believe civilians had not been slaughtered in large numbers in the past. Maybe you have heard of the 30 Years War? Or the Mongel invasions of Europe or the Huns Or the Assyrians Or the Trojan War Or HUNDREDS of other such incidents?
Yes, I am. I am a graduate student.
My respects.
I don't refer to the Union as the "North" so reject the idea that the War was between the States or North vs South.
The would-be Confederate States attacked the UNION and the war was the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs an insurrection brought about by Slaver fanatics.
Since the Union was not fighting over slavery I find it rather pathetic that you are claiming slavery should have been affected in the loyal portions of the Union where it had been legal. Lincoln had no intention to do anything unconstitutional about slavery where it was legal so why would he have done anything in the loyal states. Slavery was NOT legal in Northern states though it was in the Southern and Border states. Trying to foist off the Slaver motivation as that of Lincoln is silly.
Grant did not own the slaves his wife's family owned in a Border state were slavery was legal. There is no sophistry there. As I asked before lets see any evidence that Grant ever purchased a slave. Grant was too poor to own slaves or any other luxuries prior to the war.
You are addressing a guy who tried to claim Grant was a heroin addict among other insanities. Lots of luck.
"I do not defend a rebellion." That is exactly what you are defending. "What I do defend is the constitutional and moral right of the Southern states to secede, and to form a new government." There was NO such right and certainly NO "moral" justification for what the Slavers unleashed on the United States.
You need to wipe the crud from your eyes if that is all you have seen.
I have as many degrees as you, if not more, and NONE are from Matchbook U. If the ignorance you display in this area of history is indicative of what you learned you should sue the schools graduating you for malpractice.
That crack makes even LESS sense than your others. stand must be wearing off on you.
had the 1864 election been FAIR/honest, lincoln would have been back in IL, being a "crooked railroad lawyer".
free dixie,sw
I rarely think of those persons and never in relation to you.
My posts are directed at the contentions made here whether by you or anyone else.
and in other posts on this thread???
what i said about him is FACTUAL. he is both a south-HATER & a throughly dishonest poster OR he is a TROLL (i am of 2 minds about him. i often think he's sitting at his PC "chortling" about all the trouble, confusion & problems he's caused on these threads. otoh,he may actually be a BIGOT.).
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.