Posted on 12/21/2018 4:57:30 AM PST by Bull Snipe
President Lincoln receives at telegram reading:
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty guns and plenty of ammunition, also about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton.” YOS, General William T. Sherman
Sherman’s March to the Sea was complete. He lived up to his promise to “make Georgia howl”. During the course of the six week campaign across Georgia, Sherman’s armies had destroyed 300 miles of railroad, confiscated 22,000 head of livestock, confiscated or destroyed 4,750 tons of corn and 5,250 tons of fodder. Estimated value of the property destroyed or confiscated was 100 million dollars. In it was a very bad December for the Confederacy. Earlier in month, General Hood’s Army of the Tennessee had suffered a crushing defeat at the hand of General Thomas ’s Army of the Cumberland at Nashville Tennessee. And now, Savannah, one of the few remaining ports open to the Confederacy, was in the hands of the Abraham Lincoln’s Army and Navy.
Yup.
I know but it was great to hear (or read in this case) him point it out. For example he would describe coming within range of the confedrates: “Over the pass we could see the democrats marching towards us” or “The Democrats were in full retreat”. Of course none of that would be mentioned today by the leftist history revisionists
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." - William Sherman
How did they start the war? Did they raise an army and invade the North?
Now see, here you've told me something I didn't know. They had four score and seven years worth of legal slavery in the United States, but for some reason they had to start a war to keep that same legal slavery in the United States operating as it had been for those four score and seven years.
Silly me. I just thought that if they did nothing, slavery would continue to be legal in the United States of America.
In fact, Lincoln was urging the congress to pass the Corwin amendment to further protect slavery.
Something doesn't add up here. Was slavery staying in a peaceful Union or was it suddenly disappearing for no apparent reason that we can see?
The aristocratic landowners of Maryland (a Union state) kept their slaves working all through the war. They didn't get their hands dirty farming their own land, and for some reason there was no Union army trying to stop them.
So people think. They did capture and try to prosecute Jefferson Davis. They dropped the case rather suddenly, and withdrew the prosecution of Davis and others.
Do you know what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase told the Federal prosecutors?
He said that if you bring these men to trial, you will lose everything in court that you have won on the battlefield. Secession is not Treason.
The Federal government was going to get bitchslapped if they proceeded with the prosecution of Jefferson Davis. They wisely chose to let it go and then they pretended it was because they were being magnanimous.
The real truth is that they were going to lose the case in the third branch of government.
Here we go again with the "It's okay for Lincoln to be bad, because his enemies were bad too!" dodge.
By what argument can you claim ratified amendments have more legal strength to force states to remain together than do the laws of the thousand year old British Monarchy? Subjects are born owing allegiance to the King and the law was well and completely understood. The bond was far stronger than the circumstance of agreeing to some amendments.
If the fundamental natural rights expressed by the Declaration of Independence can break those bonds, how can they not break all lesser bonds?
How are these ideas about ratifying amendments more powerful than the overthrow of a King?
The war wasn’t waged to end slavery initially, but to save the Union. Maryland remained loyal and did not wage war on the United States. The Rebel states declared their independence, then attacked the US. They chose poorly and inevitably lost.
The abolition of slavery was a consequence of the war, not its cause from the Union’s perspective; for the Democrats, slavery was the reason they started the war.
And how did he say they caused it?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.-Abraham Lincoln-January 12, 1848
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
-Abraham Lincoln-January 9, 1852
They could have easily forced other men to perform the labor they felt themselves above doing. All they had to do was to remain in the Union. Slavery would have continued being legal indefinitely in the Union.
Slavery remained legal in the North for six months longer than it was legal in the South.
You have been fed a load of Bullsh*t to cover up the real reason for the invasion of the South. The North didn't invade to stop slavery. They invaded to stop the South from taking over the European trade from the North Eastern power barons who we are still fighting to this very day.
The South attempted to get away from the New York/Washington DC power system, and those powerful aristocrats who controlled the economic activity of the United States was not going to allow anyone to take the European trade away from them.
These same people are still controlling Washington DC today. We call them the "Establishment."
Neither did the British.
Tell the truth. They fired on that installation because a War fleet had been sent to attack them, and that fort would have helped those ships bombard them if they didn't take steps to prevent it.
War fleet caused war. No war fleet, no firing on Sumter.
Again, tell the truth. You know that the Confederates had told Anderson he could have as much time as he wished to evacuate, provided he set a date for doing so.
Warships showed up, spies told the Confederates that those ships were going to attack, and the Confederates did what any reasonable person in their position would do.
Also, Lincoln had a backup plan for triggering a war in Pensacola through his agent David Porter who immediately attempted to attack the confederates in Pensacola, and was only prevented from doing so by the quick action of Captain Meigs.
Do you have a point (besides the one atop your head)?
Yes they do, and they need to stop lying about who brought war to who. One side invaded the other. The other had no business being in the territory of the people they invaded.
The aggressors were in the wrong.
The US didn’t invade anyone during the Civil War; she sent troops to her own sovereign soil in response to armed attacks by Democrats on American soldiers and interests.
I have stated repeatedly that slavery was the South’s reason to start the war. The North was interested in the Union’s preservation. Stop the hypocritical straw-man arguments.
That would render him mute.
Davis, Lee and the rest could have been arrested and hung for sedition.
So people think. They did capture and try to prosecute Jefferson Davis. They dropped the case rather suddenly, and withdrew the prosecution of Davis and others.
Do you know what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase told the Federal prosecutors?
He said that if you bring these men to trial, you will lose everything in court that you have won on the battlefield. Secession is not Treason.
The Federal government was going to get bitchslapped if they proceeded with the prosecution of Jefferson Davis. They wisely chose to let it go and then they pretended it was because they were being magnanimous.
The real truth is that they were going to lose the case in the third branch of government.
Merry Christmas..
What gives the North more right to save the Union than the British had to save the United Kingdom?
Did our founders not articulate the principle that independence was a right given by God to any people who should want it? Was this not our own basis for declaring independence from the United Kingdom?
The Rebel states declared their independence, then attacked the US.
People keep repeating that, but they ignore the fact that Lincoln had sent a fleet of warships and soldiers to attack the Confederates in Charleston, and it is only because their spies and sentries had told them of the arrival of these warships that they began attacking the fort.
The Confederates had told Major Anderson that if he would stay out of an engagement between them and the Warships, he would be left alone. Anderson informed them that he would attack them.
What would you do if someone told you they were going to attack you when warships arrived to attack you? Would you say "okey dokey" and leave them alone?
No sane person would do such a thing.
Lincoln attacked first with his Warships. I bet you didn't even know about that part. I didn't learn about it until a couple of years ago.
The abolition of slavery was a consequence of the war
It was in fact an illegal consequence of the War. The US Constitution does not allow Federal agents to free slaves. It specifically says they must be returned to the people to whom their labor is due by the laws of their states.
The Feds committed illegal acts in defiance of constitutional law when they freed slaves. (Article IV, section 2.)
But people are okay with them breaking constitutional laws, because they liked the result. It just goes to show it wasn't about law, it was about power. Nobody wants to follow the law when it goes against them. They just want what they want.
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.