On this Date in 1864

[Bulwyf]

I don’t hate America, quite the opposite actually.

God made all men free and that’s how it should be regardless of where one lives. White, black, Arab, Chinese, the list goes on of slaves. The only ones doing slavery today are the Muslims. Coincidentally, they were the same ones doing it then.

The point I was trying to make is the behemoth of DC was burn under Lincoln. Both sides did their thing, although you could argue the union treated their prisoners a lot worse. It’s irrevelant. The main point being today. Look where we are today.

[Bulwyf]

I can only look back and see what I see. I saw the DC machine born into something it was never meant to be. At the end of the day, all I care about is freedom for all, not what our countries are becoming (I’m Albertan by the way).

We are at an unprecedented time in history and it’s going to get ugly. Only now instead of slavery, they’ll tell us they’re fighting climate deniers, bigotry, or some other garbage. Whatever it takes to get favourable public optics.

[morphing libertarian]

IIRC Lincoln brought WV into the mix to have another free state with two senators. I would appreciate your comments.

I read book abut the plan to assassinate Lincoln at the baltimore train station when he switched trains going to DC for his first inaugural. If southern sweated him dead then they must have had a reason and not seen his as supporting slavery.

[rockrr]

The point I was trying to make is the behemoth of DC was burn under Lincoln.

Nonsense. The government swelled under the wartime presidency of Lincoln out of sheer necessity but receded after the civil war.

[BroJoeK]

vetvetdoug: "My GGGrandfather was from Tennessee, a slave owner, and descendant of Revolutionary War Officers and was in the left flank assault upon the Confederates at Nashville by the Union Cavalry that routed them."

One of my Great Grandfathers was also at Nashville, his regiment's report on it follows.
They had just marched back & forth across Missouri chasing Confederate General Sterling Price...

"We had marched a distance of about 700 miles: a weary and uncomfortable march; exposure to the elements more than to the enemy, but truly, a trip that tried the mettle of the soldier.

From this point, St. Louis, we were loaded on steamboats and passed down the Mississippi and up the Cumberland River to Nashville, and here reported to General Thomas at, or about, December 1, 1864.
Disembarking, we were marched out late in the day, going into camp after night on the right of the then collected forces.
Here Colonel Kinney being the ranking officer, took command of the Division, until General Kenand Gerrard was assigned to the command, when Kinney returned to command of the Brigade.
We did some faithful work, entrenching and throwing up earthworks, expecting Hood to attack.

On one bright day, December 15, we left our defenses, and moved on the enemy, and in two days' battle, officers and men acquitted themselves honorably.
Our loss was slight.
We captured a battery of brass guns.
We never fell back in any movement during the battle.
The enemy routed and fleeing, we joined the movement south, over the Granny White Pike, seeking the retreating and flying enemy.

We marched through Franklin, passing the late field of carnage here, camping just south of the town.
It may have rained before, but it now made a success of it.
We lay until morning by letting the water run over our bodies, our heads propped up above the high water mark.
On through Columbia, crossing Duck River without resistance,
Hood's forces now effectually dissipated.
We enjoyed our Christmas and New Year's on the trip.
How we enjoyed it , we knew."

[DoodleDawg]

I can only look back and see what I see. I saw the DC machine born into something it was never meant to be. At the end of the day, all I care about is freedom for all, not what our countries are becoming (I’m Albertan by the way).

And by blaming it all on Lincoln you ignore Wilson, both Roosevelts, LBJ, Nixon, and all the presidents in between. Your beef with Lincoln is he opposed the Southern rebellion. My contention is that by doing so he did what he should have done.

[rockrr]

West Virginians resented the rogue state government forcing them into rebellion against their wishes or will. Lincoln wasn’t a party to their secession from Virginia - that was played out by the states and the Congress.

I have no doubt that he was pleased that there were Virginians who wished to remain loyal to the United States!

[morphing libertarian]

I went back to my search. It’s been awhile. Lincoln encouraged through Governor Pierpont but you’re correct. I didn’t remember that the interest in succeeding from Virginia starts before the war.

Best wishes

Born Logan West Virginia 1946, not 1846

[BroJoeK]

Bulwyf: "I don’t hate America, quite the opposite actually."

And we love Canadians, don't let anybody tell you different.

Bulwyf: "The point I was trying to make is the behemoth of DC was burn under Lincoln."

Pure myth.
Before the Civil War Federal government spent about 2% of US GDP, during the war that peaked at 13% then fell to 4% by 1871 and under 3% by 1880.
In 1907 under alleged "big government progressive" Teddy Roosevelt Federal spending reached the same level as in 1858 = 2.15% of GDP.

So it was not the Civil War which created the "Washington Behemoth", it was Southern Democrat Wilson and especially Northern Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

Bulwyf: "Both sides did their thing, although you could argue the union treated their prisoners a lot worse."

Not really:

"Over 30,000 Union and nearly 26,000 Confederate prisoners died in captivity.
Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons.[1]"

[BroJoeK]

morphing libertarian: "IIRC Lincoln brought WV into the mix to have another free state with two senators.
I would appreciate your comments."

Lincoln didn't "bring" West Virginians anywhere.
They did it themselves whether Lincoln wanted it or not.
Yes, Lincoln approved and no doubt greased some skids, but it happened because West Virginians wanted it, not because Lincoln wanted it for them.

Further there was a US senator who insisted on adding a whole row of Virginia secessionist counties to West Virginia's Unionist territory and the end result was to turn West Virginia from solid Republicans to a weird hybrid including the likes of Democrat Senators Jay scion Rockefeller, Robert KKK Byrd and Joe "independent" Manchin.

morphing libertarian: "If southern sweated him dead then they must have had a reason and not seen his as supporting slavery."

Right... in 1856 Southern Fire Eaters threatened to secede if Republican John C. Fremont was elected president.
Was it becase they feared Fremont's position on tariffs or any other normal political issue?
No, it's because Fremont was an abolitionist and Southern Democrats could not tolerate that.
So in 1856 Northern & Southern Democrats united to elect "Doughfaced" Northern Democrat James Buchanan president.

Then in 1860 Southern Fire Eaters again threatened to secede if the "Black Republican" Lincoln was elected.
Was it because they feared Lincoln's views on tariffs?
No, just as in 1856 Fire Eaters in 1860 feared Lincoln's hatred of slavery.
But in 1860 Fire Eaters made certain there could be no united Democrat victory by splitting their party, South versus North.
Again, the issue was slavery.

That's why Lost Causer claims that it was not "all about" slavery are just so much babbling nonsense.

[morphing libertarian]

MY 27 is corrected

[morphing libertarian]

thanx

[BroJoeK]

Morphing libertarian: "Born Logan West Virginia 1946, not 1846"

Logan county voted for secession over 8 to 1.
In next door counties of Wayne, Wyoming & Boone the vote was more evenly split.

[Bulwyf]

On another note, Woodrow Wilson was such a piece of crap, I don’t know how he got away with the bs.

[Bulwyf]

All the ones you mentioned were all terrible. I just see it as starting there. To be very clear I abhor slavery, and I’d die before I let anyone try that to anyone here, but we are also close to it in our current age.

[morphing libertarian]

I read today not too many battles in WV. My sister lived outside Oceana on property that was once The Smith Plantation. In operation all during the war with slaves. South West Va. I understand they built, a new Oceana HS on the flat land there. My sister’s house was up the hill a little where the slave quarters used to be. My sister sold for a big gain after they announced the school. Any way. learning much today.

[BroJoeK]

"On another note, Woodrow Wilson was such a piece of crap, I don’t know how he got away with the bs."

I do give Wilson credit for helping out Canadians & Brits in that, ah, business in France, you know...

But beyond it is a long list of problems with Wilson's presidency... where to even begin?

[Bulwyf]

That business in France was already won. He could of stayed out of it, but then how to you get major input into a league of nations that was supposed to rule the world without jumping in?

Of course the league failed, so we needed another war and then the UN was born.

I’d say we’re about due again. Too many nationalist people now, we can’t have that. We’re all supposed to welcome our overlords.

[BroJoeK]

Bulwyf: "That business in France was already won.
He could of stayed out of it..."

First time I've ever seen somebody claim that.
Most posters here, especially our Lost Causers, claim the US should have stayed out of the First World War so the Germans could win and then, amazingly, no Hitler or Second World War, Holocaust, etc., etc.

Of course a little thought and I'd guess Brits & Canadians would claim Americans weren't needed -- just a bunch of glory hounds anyway, did very little fighting then took all the credit, in the mean time French, Brits, Canadians & everybody else died in their millions so Americans could steal the show!
I "get" that, and guess I'd be a bit miffed too, especially when we consider Versailles.
On the other hand I don't think Wilson was solely to blame for Versailles and the League of Nations not necessarily a terrible idea -- we live and we learn.

Bulwyf: "I’d say we’re about due again.
Too many nationalist people now, we can’t have that.
We’re all supposed to welcome our overlords."

Too many youngsters were taught in school that "nationalism" is a bad word so it's not really their fault.
The truth is that "nationalism" and "patriotism" are synonyms and, in the right degree, necessary for survival of any country.
Think of those words like a medicine, or vitamin, we need to survive but too much is a poison that will also kill us.

Anyway, as I think you're suggesting, our globalists, internationalists, socialists, one-world-without-borders-ists don't like words like "patriot" or "nationalist" and will do their best to squash us if they can.

[BroJoeK]

morphing libertarian: "I read today not too many battles in WV."

Well... of 384 Civil War battles larger than minor skirmishes, 15 were fought in West Virginia, half of those in 1861 and five of them classified as "major".
Some of the more interesting in 1861 involved victories of Union General George McClellan, as a result of which Lincoln made him Commander in Washington, and the defeat of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, as a result of which Jefferson Davis reassigned Lee to guard the coast of North Carolina.