Posted on 01/24/2014 8:00:53 AM PST by rockrr
It seems fitting that the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War, which some people might still be shocked to learn the North won, turned out to be "Dixie."
After all, since Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox there's been no shortage of looking away, looking away at the reality of history when it comes to the Civil War.
Nowhere is that full flower of denial more apparent than among the followers of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is upset about a proposal to erect a monument to Union soldiers who died in the Battle of Olustee, regarded by historians as the largest and deadliest engagement in Florida during the "wowrah." Related News/Archive
Next month marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Olustee, about 45 miles west of Jacksonville. Some 2,000 Union troops died in the conflict, while 1,000 Confederate soldiers also perished in an engagement that did not substantially alter the course of the Civil War.
The 3-acre Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park includes three monuments honoring the Confederate troops who fought and died in the encounter. But when the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War pushed for a memorial on the site to pay homage to the sacrifices of their forbearers, hostilities ensued. So did illiterate silliness.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Do they reenact the pulling of the train? That is crazy.
It’s bad manners to pick your nose and eat it. But you’re pelly.
I know we have liberal seminar posters here, all conservatives are under attack. How about some respect for another conservative's posts? Liberalism must be defeated and to do that, we must stick together. I won't go to DU, but I'm sure they snicker about some of the out-of-control arguments we get into here.
My recollection may be hazy, but I don't remember FR like this back in the 90's.
You are correct. The terms of surrender allowed all Confederate officers to retain their personal side arms. General Lee tendered his sword to General Grant at the surrender meeting. General Grant declined to accept Lee’s sword.
Pardon me for insulting your boyfriend.
Had I known you two were a couple I would have simply ignored his yankee manners.
“Don Meaker”
“he caught Robinsons attention and got the bolt”
Thank God!! Did you ever read that guy’s profile? It gave me the creeps.
“Jones was probably a gift to Grant from his father-in-law, as it seems unlikely he would have had the capital to buy him at market value. But he certainly could have sold him, probably for $1000+, rather than free him.”
Well alrighty then that makes it OK. As long as you receive the slave as a gift no harm no foul. Now I get it. :-)
Too bad all the Yankee Generals didn’t fair so well. I have General Crook’s sidearm sitting in a cabinet. One of my ancestors rode with McNeil’s raiders. When they snatched Crook he relieved the good General of his Whitney Dragoon and then passed it on down. :-)
Just proves that Grant was a class act. He accepted the surrender of 3 Confederate armies and did not accept the sword of any of the generals surrendering to him.
“If you have a reference for this claim, I’d like to see it.”
Ya know Sherm I’ve observed that you seem a little short on references.
Why don’t you splain to us one more time how it was OK that Grant and his wife owned slaves but the North had to invade and ravage the South over it?
I think that we would need a lot of evidence for that one don’t you?
Not to mention what evidence is there that the South is compelled to put up statues of invaders that tried to destroy one half of their own country? I’d like to see some legal evidence of it.
If there isn’t any then gee I don’t think we will. :-)
Toward the end of his stay here, he told me he would be happy to evangelize me on "Roman paganism", LOL.
Lets get back to the issue. An attempt to force the South to put memorials to an invading horde in the Olustee battlefield.
One battle I doubt the Yankee libtards will win. That makes me smile. :-)
Granted I did ridicule the guy on a couple of threads but he started PM’g me. I told him I was grateful he didn’t know where I lived. :-)
Well, no.
He is saying that the Founders would probably have allowed for a legal means of secession if they had foreseen the situation that arose in 1860.
But they didn’t foresee it, so made no such provisions.
Duh! That was SOP back then.
Something was definitely off...no doubt about it.
You are correct. Forgive my waxing poetic. I did not look it up.
You are correct. Forgive my waxing poetic. I did not look it up.
No problem. Chamberlain himself said he had to keep squashing such stories during his own life.
There were more libertarians here in 2000-2005
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.