Posted on 09/01/2018 7:30:09 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The battle of Gettysburg was the largest engagement of the Civil War, and--with more than 51,000 casualties--also the deadliest. The highest regimental casualty rate at Gettysburg, an estimated 85 percent, was incurred by the 26th North Carolina Infantry. Who were these North Carolinians? Why were they at Gettysburg? How did they come to suffer such a grievous distinction? In Covered with Glory, award-winning historian Rod Gragg reveals the extraordinary story of the 26th North Carolina in fascinating detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
I don’t have problems with folks here, really. Just you Confederates In The Attic.
my mistake.
No. The slavery issue drove the first seven states in the deep South to secede from the Union. The other 4 states to secede did so for reasons, not primarily limited to slavery. Four state where slavery was legal did not leave the Union. Secession did not necessarily have to lead to Civil War.
Show me where I said differently, genius.
Open ports kept troops from AL and NC well equipped compared to other state in the south. This is what I have read in many sources. Actually I read a letter from the GA governor complaining about this very thing to Jeff Davis.
Why would the South “go to war” to preserve slavery when Lincoln specifically said many times he had no desire to end slavery. He said it before he was elected and after he was elected.
Lincoln’s first inaugural address clearly states he had no intention of depriving the South of its property (slaves) and that he had no intention of ending slavery, that his only concern was preserving the Union, and following the law (such as the Fugitive Slave Act). See the very first page of his address. This wasn’t just a matter of private letters interpreted out of context. Lincoln was a white supremacist, who wanted to send all blacks back to Africa. He believed blacks were inferior. Lincoln himself as a lawyer had defended a slave owner who wanted his runaway slave returned. Lincoln never intended to end slavery. Only after the bloodiest war in history, as Lincoln feared Britain coming into the war on the side of the South, for British commercial reasons, did Lincoln attempt to appeal to British anti-slavery sentiments, with a fake “Emancipation Proclamation” that freed no one. Historians misread everything Lincoln did. Lincoln chose a slave owner, Johnson for his running mate, and even no longer ran as a Republican for president in 1864. Lincoln married the daughter of a major slave owning family. Lincoln chose slave owner US Grant as his commanding general, while the Confederacy chose Robert E. Lee, who had no slaves and freed his wife’s inherited slaves a decade before the Civil War. It should be no surprise to anyone that Lincoln the White Supremacist never had any intention of ending slavery. Lincoln was shyster lawyer politician, in it for the money and invaded the South because they wouldn’t accept excessive tariffs. Lincoln had a cash register where most people have a heart. Lincoln’s charming words misled most everyone.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
“Why would the South “go to war” to preserve slavery when Lincoln specifically said many times he had no desire to end slavery. He said it before he was elected and after he was elected” Read the Secession Documents of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas. That should answer your question.
(Lee) “freed his wife’s inherited slaves a decade before the Civil War.” Wrong. G.W.P. Custis, Mary Lee’s father, died in 1858. He named R.E. Lee as the estates executor.
As such, Lee was authorized to free the Custis slaves at his discretion, but no later than 5 years after Custis’s death. Lee freed the last of the Custis slaves in December 1862. Hardly 10 years before the Civil War.
When asked when he waited till the 25th Amendment was passed in Dec 1865 to free his slave, Grant said “good help is hard to find.”
The Union Army was given instructions that the first Confederate soldiers to be shot were black soldiers fighting alongside whites, of which there were many. Yankee history books ignore this well-established fact.
You may mean the 19th century. Democracy was still controversial in the 18th century.
If I could buy and sell people and force them to work for me without pay I wouldn't want the federal government messing with that either, especially if people like me controlled state and local government.
But Southern Democrats weren't opposed to using the federal government to protect and promote and extend slavery. They also weren't any great friends of freedom of speech or the press or contract or movement.
And those "big government liberal Whig/Republicans"? What did they want?
Federal aid for roads and canals. Protection from foreign competition for industry. Maybe the Homestead Act and land grant state colleges.
Not exactly a massive federal bureaucracy.
Nothing that Taft or Coolidge or Eisenhower or Reagan or Trump would have much trouble with.
Right and left, liberal and conservative can mean different things at different times and under different circumstances.
If those Southern Democrats had been able to make the country, the continent and the world safe for slavery, many Americans would have regarded that as a radical departure from our best traditions.
Also, you have to consider whether or not slavery was bad enough to be something you'd want to worry about -- whether or not it could be an exception to the idea that the federal government should keep its nose out of local and state affairs.
If I'd been around in the 1850s, I might well have supported the Democrats thinking that they were the more conservative party.
But I would have been wrong.
Grant never said that.
You need to read your history a little closer. General Grant was dead a long time along time before the 25th Amendment to the Constitution was signed.
That aside, cite the written “instructions” the army was given to shot black soldiers serving in the Confederate Army. If you can.
Maybe because, you know, it never freakin' happened?
Just dumb I guess.
Two of my g-g-uncles were also part of Pettigrew's Brigade, NC 47th, Company F.
Guess we need come up with a “Southern Caucus” or “Confederate Caucus” because this thread was hijacked by those that have no interest in reading about valorous units in US military history. So for the unreconstructed Southrons on FR and especially fellow Tar Heels,
I leave you with the inscription on the North Carolina
Monument at Gettysburg. Deo Vindice.
1863
North Carolina
To the eternal glory of the North Carolina
soldiers. Who on this battlefield displayed
heroism unsurpassed sacrificing all in sup-
port of their cause. Their valorous deeds
will be enshrined in the hearts of men long
after these transient memorials have crum-
bled into dust.
Thirty two North Carolina regiments were in
action at Gettysburg July 1,2,3, 1863. One Con-
federate soldier in every four who fell here
was a North Carolinian.
Thank you for putting in perspective ‘’x’’. The fulminations, petty foggings, red herrings and the general thrashing about of The Lost Causer’s always love throwing out “Lincoln the dictator’’, Mr Big Government Liberal’’(oddly a term that I believe didn’t enter the lexicon until the late 20th century) when it was the South that was big government. Certainly one that brooked no opposition to the slave trade and the economy it supported.
Thank you for putting in perspective ‘’x’’. The fulminations, petty foggings, red herrings and the general thrashing about of The Lost Causer’s always love throwing out “Lincoln the dictator’’, Mr Big Government Liberal’’(oddly a term that I believe didn’t enter the lexicon until the late 20th century) when it was the South that was big government. Certainly one that brooked no opposition to the slave trade and the economy it supported.
Well... Confederates claimed 13 states plus Oklahoma and New Mexico/Arizona, so that's 16 with the USA down to 34.
Then there's West Virginia, Confederate victory would keep that in Virginia, USA now 33.
And while we're at it, victory would also mean Maryland and DC -- Confederates 17, USA 32.
But wait... let's talk about the Mississippi River under strict Confederate control, closed to commerce from "unfriendly" Union states but open wide for all who respect Southern rule -- another dozen Union states & territories, from Ohio to Nebraska suddenly become "neutral" just as Kentucky had tried to be in 1861.
And maybe half of them consider applying for Confederate statehood.
Now I count Confederates 23, Union 26 states.
And why would California & other west-coast states want to belong to a rump Union that was clearly failing to inspire loyalty from its own citizens?
So California declares its independence taking the mountain states with it and now we have a Union of the Northeastern states and maybe, what, Michigan & Wisconsin?
By the way, none of this was ever intended by central_va, who only ever wanted his Confederacy to be left alone by those mean old Yankees.
But DiogenesLamp knows full well what I'm saying, and agrees with me 100% on this point at least, if on nothing else.
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.