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

YouTube ^ | Steve Knott - Army War College

[central_va]

I have been reading original sources about the Civil War for over 20 years (or more). No where does any Confederate/Southern politician, military commander, soldier or civilian ever claim the goal was to conquer or occupy the the northern states. The thought is laughable. You lose all credibility when you make these a outlandish claims.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are a black person, educated and went probably to a predominantly black college? Am I right? Perhaps you were taught by professors with their own agendas? Maybe?

[Theophilus]

Jackson requested permission to invade the North before First Bull Run. He understood the necessity to demoralize them.

[Mr. Lucky]

Kentucky remained in the Union, yet Braxton Bragg, with the express authority of the Confederate government, occupied Frankfort in 1862 for the express purpose of replacing the pro-Unionn elected government with an unelected, pro-Confederacy government.

[BroJoeK]

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

What man, what mob?
Ohio Democrat Congressman Vallandigham was turned over to Confederates, iirc, surely a just and humorous punishment if there ever was one?

[BroJoeK]

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

So you agree that Confederates were lawless rebels?
Fine, I have no problem with that.

DiogenesLamp: "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.' "

So long as you've totally confessed & proclaimed Confederates to be lawless rebels, then I'm willing to consider allegations that the Union itself did not always follow the letter or spirit of its own laws.

But that's not really the case, is it?
In fact, you've proclaimed the opposite -- that Confederates were the real law-abiders and Lincoln, in effect, the lawless rebel.
I think, so long as you insist Confederates were lawful, then it's legitimate to compare their actions to Lincoln's, don't you?

DiogenesLamp: "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.) "

Nonsense.
Lost Causers often tell us Confederates were more lawful than Lincoln and that claim makes "tu quoque" a valid comparison.
But if you now wish to flip and confess that Confederates were just lawless rebels, then we can entertain the question of whether the Union crossed all its legal "t's" and dotted all its "i's".

My opinion is that Union officials, including Lincoln, did the best they could given the circumstances.
I think it's significant that virtually none of what Lost Causers claim was soooooo "illegal" in Lincoln's actions was ever challenged in court or in Congress.

So such claims have no merit.
You disagree?

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Total nonsense, since there's no "penumbra" in the Declaration's clear language of "all men are created equal", it is what it is.
By sharp contrast, the "right" to abolish an existing government is clearly tied to the necessity spelled out in great details in the Declaration.

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

Because in 1776 most Founders, including Jefferson & Washington, believed slavery a moral evil which should eventually be abolished.
By contrast they tied the "right" to abolish a government to the kinds of necessity they listed.

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

But still, in 1776 most Founders, including the slaveholders, believed slavery wrong and it should be abolished eventually.
They recognized that they themselves did not then live up to the ideal they expressed.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "No where does any Confederate/Southern politician, military commander, soldier or civilian ever claim the goal was to conquer or occupy the the northern states.
The thought is laughable.
You lose all credibility when you make these a outlandish claims."

But I've made no "outlandish claims", only stated the facts.
Confederates claimed and invaded Union states or territories of Missouri, Kentucky & West Virginia, Oklahoma & New Mexico/Arizona.
How is that not a clear existential threat to the United States?

Confederates didn't claim but did send forces into Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana & Kansas.
Would you now claim those Confederates intended to leave those Union states unharmed if they weren't opposed & defeated by Union forces?

In the Civil War's first 12 months Confederates fought more battles and lost more soldiers in the Union than in the Confederacy.

Confederates also sank or captured hundreds of Union ships and operated guerilla forces in several Union states.
In what possible way are those not existential threats?

So you keep telling us, over & over, "there was no plan" to conquer the North.
But Confederate victories in all their efforts would certainly have destroyed the United States, plan or no plan.

Those are the facts.

[central_va]

God you people are messed up. There was absolutely no threat to the Union of a Confederate take over, conquest. YOU PEOPLE ARE REALLY DELUSIONAL. HISTORICALLY RETARDED.

1. So listen, the South was fighting a defensive war from day one. EVERYONE AT THE TIME KNEW IT.

2. The South made several forays into disputed states like Missouri and Kentucky to try to sway them back into the South.

3. Lee invaded PA loaded down with foreign correspondents in a tactical move to make headlines in Europe and try to get GB on the side of the South. Also, Davis was getting political pressure to get the Yanks out of VA, north of the Rappahannock River. So, for a while after Gettysburg, that tactical move worked.

4. Strategically speaking, from day one the war,it was all about the North CONQUERING the SOUTH. The Confederates wanted a stalemate. The other possibility, the South beating the North and the North surrendering is a farcical fantasy. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, NOT EVEN NEWT GINGRICH WOULD WRITE A FANTASY NOVEL LIKE THAT.

[central_va]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are a black person, educated and went probably to a predominantly black college? Am I right? Perhaps you were taught by professors with their own agendas? Maybe?

[central_va]

Please watch this basic video on the Civil War. You are an embarrassment to yourself and to Free Republic. Free Republic is not some "predominantly black university" as such we talk about reality and truth an not fairy tales with an agenda.

The Union needed to capture Confederate territory, but the Confederates didn't need or want to invade Union territory.

Again I ask please watch this video, I'd say it is on a Junior High level so you will be able to keep up.

Comparing Union & Confederate Civil War Strategies

[Theophilus]

It's a well known fact the Thomas Jackson proposed to Joe Johnston that he attack Baltimore and Philadelphia, and that his wise aggression put him at odds politically, especially with President Davis.

When Jackson raided the B&O railroad and was promoted to BG, what part of the South was that in?

Jackson grasped total warfare early, before anyone else.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/stonewall-jacksons-plan-of-northern-invasion.13925/

https://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Yell-Violence-Redemption-Stonewall/dp/1451673299/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1544295667&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=rebel+yell+book

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "So listen, the South was fighting a defensive war from day one.
EVERYONE AT THE TIME KNEW IT."

Sure, right, "defensive", got it.
So long as we define "defensive" as including Confederate conquests of Union Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma & New Mexico/Arizona.
Oh, sure, that's "defensive".

central_va: "The South made several forays into disputed states like Missouri and Kentucky to try to sway them back into the South."

Right, and that's not "offense", just more "defense".
Of course Confedeates claimed the Union states of Missouri (12th star) and Kentucky (13th star) even though neither ever legitimately voted to secede.
But that wasn't "offense", just more "defense", riiiiiiiight.

Confederates also claimed & invaded Oklahoma & New Mexico but that was also more "defense", dontcha know.

central_va: "Lee invaded PA loaded down with foreign correspondents in a tactical move to make headlines in Europe and try to get GB on the side of the South.
Also, Davis was getting political pressure to get the Yanks out of VA, north of the Rappahannock River."

Sure, and some people claim Gettysburg was strictly a supply run to collect shoes, nothing "offensive" there, right?
But historians know better.
Lee won the argument over sending troops to reinforce Vicksburg because Harrisburg PA was strategically more important.
It offered the opportunity to first defeat & destroy the Union Army of the Potomac and then set up headquarters astride major Union railroad junctions.
From Harrisburg Lee could threaten Baltimore, Philadelphia & even New York where Southern sympathizers would soon riot against Republicans.
Lee's threat against big Union cities would force Lincoln to abandon Washington, DC, sue for peace and lose the war.
But hey, nothing "offensive" there, all strictly "defense", right?

central_va: "Strategically speaking, from day one the war,it was all about the North CONQUERING the SOUTH.
The Confederates wanted a stalemate.
The other possibility, the South beating the North and the North surrendering is a farcical fantasy."

No, that's all in your mind, a game of definitions.
Lee invades Pennsylvania, hopes to destroy the Union army and win the war by threatening major Union cities.
No "offense" there, strictly "defense", right?
But along with winning Confederates take, let's see... Maryland, DC, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma & New Mexico -- just more "defense".

Oh, and while we're at it, of course there have to be reparations, right?
The North has to pay, right, for the cost of war and all that financial "raping" that drives posters like DiogenesLamp so insane, pay up!
And why should western states like California remain in the Union, what did it ever to for them?
Jefferson Davis' Gadsden Purchase was a perfect transcontinental railroad route, would tie California to the Confederacy, maybe make them "neutral", right?

So the Union is left with the Northeast and some Great Lakes states, but hey, totally defense.
Reminds me of the old Pittsburg Steel Curtain -- what the h*ll did they need Bradshaw for?
Defense, defense, defense, DEFENSE!!

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are a black person, educated and went probably to a predominantly black college?
Am I right?
Perhaps you were taught by professors with their own agendas?
Maybe?"

The sad part is that my home page, and over the years here, I've posted a lot of personal information, family history, etc., some of it directly to you, but apparently it didn't register since I keep getting requests for more, wardaddy especially, now you.

And a curious point is that DiogenesLamp has told us his black roommate in college first put him onto how evil wicked Lincoln's Republicans were.
Of course nobody ever asked if a logical reason for having a black roommate is that DL himself is black, but somehow you want to paint me in blackface... why?

I went to Penn State, State College, was there Joe Paterno's first year as head coach.
Yes, some of my history professors were self-proclaimed Marxists, the Civil War era especially, sounded much like DiogenesLamp in claiming everything was about economics & class warfare.
I didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.

So what about central_va - where did that brush with black paint come from?

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "The Union needed to capture Confederate territory, but the Confederates didn't need or want to invade Union territory"

Sure, well... except for Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma & New Mexico/Arizona -- claimed by Confederates.
Well... also Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana & Kansas, invaded by Confederates and driven out by Union forces.
Then there were Confederate guerillas in California, Colorado & Vermont, among others.

Indeed, when you count them up, in the Civil War's first 12 months Confederates fought more battles and lost more lives in the Union than in the Confederacy.
But I "get" that all that was just defense, DE-FENSE!, I mean, who needs stinkin' offense anyway?

[rockrr]

So what about central_va - where did that brush with black paint come from?

His bigoted walnut-sized brain?

[DiogenesLamp]

What man, what mob?

The "mob" you referred to in your previous message on this point. You were insinuating Mafia, but the "mob" in this context is the criminals, which is what you claim the Confederates were.

So why would the President turn someone over to criminals? How is that legal?

[DiogenesLamp]

So you agree that Confederates were lawless rebels? Fine, I have no problem with that.

No I don't. I regard them as exercising a God given right and in a lawful manner. I am merely asking you to evaluate Lincoln's actions from *YOUR* perspective that they were criminals.

How does a President legally turn over a man to criminals?

So long as you've totally confessed & proclaimed Confederates to be lawless rebels, then I'm willing to consider allegations that the Union itself did not always follow the letter or spirit of its own laws.

So why does the Union get to pick and choose? Is that not what the Confederates did in your opinion? If the Union is going to try to enforce constitutional law on the Confederates, why is it too much to expect them to enforce constitutional law on themselves as well?

Sounds like more than one side was doing some rebelling.

I think it's significant that virtually none of what Lost Causers claim was soooooo "illegal" in Lincoln's actions was ever challenged in court or in Congress.

Why did Roberts flip on Obamacare?

[DiogenesLamp]

And a curious point is that DiogenesLamp has told us his black roommate in college first put him onto how evil wicked Lincoln's Republicans were.

He wasn't my "roommate", he was my best friend. He did come to live with me for awhile but that's when we were both just getting started at jobs and such. We both went to college part time while working Jobs. *He* was the history major, (I went STEM) and he was the one obsessed with the Civil War.

I had little interest in it until relatively recently. Now I find it explains a lot about where the power is today, and how it is being used and abused.

The New York/Washington DC money spending cartel runs things today, and now I believe they were running things back then.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So why would the President turn someone over to criminals?
How is that legal?"

So you again admit Confederates were nothing but a lawless mob?
That's fine, I have no problem with it.

As for prisoner exchanges during wartime, those are entirely common and lawful.
If you think Lincoln gave away too much, then you might contemplate the recent exchange of Sgt. Bergdahl for, was it, five terrorist leaders?

Vallandigham & Bergdahl:

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on lawless Confederates: "No I don't.
I regard them as exercising a God given right and in a lawful manner.
I am merely asking you to evaluate Lincoln's actions from *YOUR* perspective that they were criminals."

Sure, I "get" that you wish to have your cake and eat it too.
But, so long as you hold up Confederates as being lawful then it's entirely legit to compare & contrast their "lawful" actions to those of Lincoln's Republicans.
For example, you make much of Lincoln's alleged "illegal" arrests of Union "copperheads", but, on inspection it turns out Jefferson Davis had proportionately just as many Southern Unionists arrested & held without trial.
So, if that's legal for Confederates, why is it suddenly illegal when the Union did it?

DiogenesLamp: "How does a President legally turn over a man to criminals? "

You might ask President Obama about that.
I don't remember anyone challenging his legal authority to do it for Bergdahl.

DiogenesLamp: "So why does the Union get to pick and choose?
Is that not what the Confederates did in your opinion?
If the Union is going to try to enforce constitutional law on the Confederates, why is it too much to expect them to enforce constitutional law on themselves as well?"

Sure, like any good mob lawyer, you hope to get your client released on some technicality of government misbehavior.
I "get" that,
But you also insist your client is an innocent law-abiding citizen which means that anything illegal you client did should justify similar actions by the United States.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

DiogenesLamp: "Why did Roberts flip on Obamacare?"

Agreed, we do have examples of poor SCOTUS rulings.
On the other hand, virtually none of the issues you claim represent Union "illegal" actions were ever even taken to court for rulings one way or the other.

That tells me your ideas on this subject are pure fantasy, as with so much else.