Battle of Gettysburg: why J.E.B. Stuart ends up in Carlisle (Video-This is good)

YouTube ^ | Steve Knott - Army War College

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Arresting Congressmen, Arresting News paper editors, arresting pretty much anyone who dared criticize the war, and yet the idea that he would order the arrest of a Supreme Court justice is crazy?"

The U.S. Constitution is clear & direct in its definition of "treason" -- waging war against the USA or providing aid & comfort to our enemy.
So Lincoln's release of Ohio Congressman Vallanigham to Confederates only demonstrates that Lincoln had a great sense of humor!

As for Dred Scott's Chief Justice crazy Roger Taney, well... not clear if by 1861 he was even dangerous enough to be arrested for giving "said & comfort" to Confederates.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It may not have continued had Gettysburg went the other way.
I think that is the man’s point. "

Doodledawg: "Why would losing Gettysburg been any more destructive than losing Chancellorsville?
Had Lee won at Gettysburg what really would have changed?
He still goes back South."

Important point to remember here is that Union General George Mead didn't want to fight at Gettysburg,didn't think he could win there and at the moment of victory, Pickett's charge, Mead was in the UNion rear organizing its expected retreat.

Mead had in mind where he really wanted to fight Lee, and was readying that position in case of need.
Point is, Mead was ready to fight a second big battle if needed, but Lee absolutely was not.

[central_va]

Unknown to the Union forces after the failed attack on Cemetery ridge was that the Confederate re-supply train, with very much needed artillery ammo, was still 45 minutes from reaching Seminary ridge. During that 45 minutes the Union would have had a very successful counter attack and would probably had crippled/routed the Army of NoVa terribly.

[DiogenesLamp]

The U.S. Constitution is clear & direct in its definition of "treason" -- waging war against the USA or providing aid & comfort to our enemy.

I don't recall hearing of any convictions for "Treason." Perhaps you could remind me of when those happened?

So Lincoln's release of Ohio Congressman Vallanigham to Confederates only demonstrates that Lincoln had a great sense of humor!

It demonstrates he had no qualms about doing whatever he thought he could get away with and the Constitutional be D@mned.

So you are claiming Vallanigham committed treason by criticizing a President who started a war that killed more people in single battles than the entire casualties of all previous wars?

Doesn't the constitution require at least two witnesses to convict someone of treason? And I must have missed the part where Military Tribunals (Military is under the direct command of the President) were part of "due process."

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't pay much attention to the history of the battles. They do not speak to the moral and legal issues surrounding the moral and legal right to leave a Union voluntarily joined.

The civil war was about might making right. Not about objective right.

[BroJoeK]

"During that 45 minutes the Union would have had a very successful counter attack..."

Agreed. Mead was no Grant.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I don't recall hearing of any convictions for "Treason."
Perhaps you could remind me of when those happened? "

Both Union & Confederate officials arrested & held thousands of anti-war citizens.
I couldn't say how many were tried or convicted on what charges, but both sides did it in roughly equal proportions.

DiogenesLamp: "It demonstrates he had no qualms about doing whatever he thought he could get away with and the Constitutional be D@mned."

The Constitution is absolutely clear that giving aid and comfort to those at war against the United States is treason.
What's remarkable is that Lincoln chose as "punishment" to turn the good congressman over to his Confederate friends.

DiogenesLamp: "So you are claiming Vallanigham committed treason by criticizing a President who started a war that killed more people in single battles than the entire casualties of all previous wars? "

No, I don't think Vallanigham ever criticized Jefferson Davis and doubt if Vallanigham would be arrested by Lincoln if he did.
Anyway, the Constitution is clear on the subject of giving aid & comfort and seems to me that's what Vallanigham did.
Of course I wasn't there, and haven't studied the legalities...

DiogenesLamp: "Doesn't the constitution require at least two witnesses to convict someone of treason?
And I must have missed the part where Military Tribunals (Military is under the direct command of the President) were part of 'due process.' "

Sure, the Constitution is clear in authorizing Congress to set punishments for treason.
Congress is also the logical authority for defining "due process".
But again I note that both sides arrested & held thousands for their anti-war views, not at all clear what "due process" was ever followed.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The civil war was about might making right.
Not about objective right."

Confederates clearly believed they had both the right and might to win a war against the United States.
Turned out they were wrong about both.

[DiogenesLamp]

Both Union & Confederate officials arrested & held thousands of anti-war citizens. I couldn't say how many were tried or convicted on what charges, but both sides did it in roughly equal proportions.

What the Confederates did does not excuse or justify what the supposed adherents to the US Constitution did.

The Constitution is absolutely clear that giving aid and comfort to those at war against the United States is treason.

It is also remarkably clear on the requirements to prove treason, and it is also remarkably clear on the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, most conspicuously among them being "Due Process."

What's remarkable is that Lincoln chose as "punishment" to turn the good congressman over to his Confederate friends.

Yes, completely illegal. As illegal as it gets.

Of course I wasn't there, and haven't studied the legalities...

[DiogenesLamp]

You do have a seeming need to justify what Lincoln did by pointing fingers at the Confederates. Why cannot his actions be evaluated on their own basis without having to interject "they were just as bad" in order to make Lincoln's actions seem respectable?

Hiding behind the Confederates is just a way for you to dodge the truth. Lincoln behaved like a tyrant.

[central_va]

Gen. George Meade

[central_va]

LOL. Nobody in the South even considered taking over occupying the North by force, that thought is laughable.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What the Confederates did does not excuse or justify what the supposed adherents to the US Constitution did."

I'd say it does, why would we not apply the same standards to both sides?
After all, doesn't the Confederate constitution use the same words on this subject as the US Constitution?
So how is it OK for thee but not for me?

Seriously, the real issue here is the typical blazing hypocrisy of Democrats which, sadly, DiogenesLamp seems to share.

DiogenesLamp: "It is also remarkably clear on the requirements to prove treason, and it is also remarkably clear on the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, most conspicuously among them being 'Due Process.' "

I'll admit a problem when you show us where Confederates followed their constitution more religiously than the Union did.
Here, for example:

"In Texas local officials harassed unionists and engaged in large-scale massacres against unionists and Germans.
In Cooke County 150 suspected unionists were arrested; 25 were lynched without trial and 40 more were hanged after a summary trial."

And here:

"Vice President Alexander H. Stephens feared losing the very form of republican government.
Allowing President Davis to threaten 'arbitrary arrests' to draft hundreds of governor-appointed 'bomb-proof' bureaucrats conferred 'more power than the English Parliament had ever bestowed on the king.
History proved the dangers of such unchecked authority.'[235]
The abolishment of draft exemptions for newspaper editors was interpreted as an attempt by the Confederate government to muzzle presses, such as the Raleigh NC Standard, to control elections and to suppress the peace meetings there."

Or here:

"The Confederacy actively used the army to arrest people suspected of loyalty to the United States.
Historian Mark Neely found 4,108 names of men arrested and estimated a much larger total.[264]
The Confederacy arrested pro-Union civilians in the South at about the same rate as the Union arrested pro-Confederate civilians in the North.[265] Neely argues:
'The Confederate citizen was not any freer than the Union citizen – and perhaps no less likely to be arrested by military authorities.
In fact, the Confederate citizen may have been in some ways less free than his Northern counterpart.
For example, freedom to travel within the Confederate states was severely limited by a domestic passport system.[266]"

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, completely illegal. As illegal as it gets."

Says our newest Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Crazy Roger DiogenesLamp.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'd say it does, why would we not apply the same standards to both sides?

Why would we apply the same standard to both sides? According to your point of view, the Confederate side was a criminal enterprise.

Why then should the legitimate government behave like a criminal enterprise too?

Are we to conclude that the government is no longer required to obey laws because criminals violate them?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Why would we apply the same standard to both sides?
According to your point of view, the Confederate side was a criminal enterprise. "

"Criminal enterprise"? Well...
Any good mob lawyer can concoct a long list of government violations to free his client on technicalities.
And on occasion such tactics work and the murderer walks free.
But that always requires an appeal to and ruling from a higher court, sometimes the US Supreme Court.

In your case, no such appeals were made and no such rulings issued.
So your words here amount to nothing more that our notorious mob lawyer hoping to get his client released on technicalities from the court of public opinion.

Good luck with that.

[BroJoeK]

"Gen. George Meade"

;-)
Iirc, Meade was born in Spain:

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "LOL. Nobody in the South even considered taking over occupying the North by force, that thought is laughable."

Nonsense. When you think about it...
Confederates claimed & invaded three Union states, Missouri, Kentucky & West Virginia, plus Union territories of Oklahoma & New Mexico/Arizona.
They also invaded Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma & New Mexico/Arizona.
Confederate guerilla forces operated in California, Colorado & even Vermont, among others.

In the Civil War's first 12 months more battles were fought and more Confederate soldiers died in the Union than Confederacy.

That's what makes it absurd to claim the Confederacy was not an existential threat to the United States.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You do have a seeming need to justify what Lincoln did by pointing fingers at the Confederates.
Why cannot his actions be evaluated on their own basis without having to interject 'they were just as bad' in order to make Lincoln's actions seem respectable? "

No, but your problem here is you wish to apply today's standards to Lincoln's Union without applying those same standards to Davis' Confederacy.
Why is that?

Indeed, you insist that Davis be judged by no standards except his own, while Lincoln must be condemned by whatever cockamamie nonsense you can devise.

The important fact is that in all early phases Confederates were the aggressors and Union authorities merely responded with the goals of first preserving the Union and in due time replacing the extant system of chattel bondage with something more consistent to our declared 1776 ideals.

[DiogenesLamp]

Any good mob lawyer can concoct a long list of government violations to free his client on technicalities.

So you can give us a good legitimate reason why the President would order the military to turn someone over to the mob?

[DiogenesLamp]

No, but your problem here is you wish to apply today's standards to Lincoln's Union without applying those same standards to Davis' Confederacy.

Weren't Davis' Confederacy "rebels"? Why on earth would you expect them to follow the law?

No, what you are trying to do is to claim that "Because the rebels broke the law, it's okay for Lincoln to break the law."

You are trying to justify Lincoln abuses by claiming criminals he was fighting didn't obey the law.

You want to employ this tactic because you really really have no justifiable argument as to why Lincoln was breaking these laws other than "they did it too!" (Argumentum tu quoque.)

in due time replacing the extant system of chattel bondage with something more consistent to our declared 1776 ideals.

Funny how you get this "Penumbra" of freeing slaves out of the Declaration of Independence, but deliberately ignore the actual words that say people have a right to abolish an existing government and form one more to their liking.

Why are your imagined 1776 ideas about freeing slaves more important than actually articulated ideas about a right to independence?

How do you pick your imaginary 1776 values over the real 1776 values of right to independence?

It's called the "Declaration of Independence." It is not called the "Declaration of freeing slaves."