Replies

You have absolutely no idea what I was talking about. You have absolutely no idea how much I abhor the implications of Walt's posts concerning the War of Northern Agression.

The implication of my posts is that the neo-confederates today offer an interpretation based on fantasy, not history.

The founding fathers had absolutely no doubt that they were establishing a permanent federal Union. Neo-confederates want to suggest that unilateral state secession was legal when it as nothing but revolution --revolution against a governnment that southerners had a large part in creating and one which they had controlled for decades prior to the Civil War.

Neo-confederates love getting a tear in their beer over the sacrifice of rebel soldiers when the record shows that the rebel armies melted away from desertion. Rebel armies depended much on conscription. Rebel armies didn't have nearly the success as commonly thought. The insurgent armies had not ONE major success outside Virginia THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WAR, excepting Chickamauga. Grant's army (later commanded by Sherman) advanced from Forts Henry and Donelson, through Nashville, took Vicksburg, moved across Tennnessee, into Georgia and through the Carolinas and except for Chickamauga met success everywhere.

Even the great hero Lee had as little success outside Virginia, as deposed Union Generals Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it. Lee's reputation hangs on one battle, Chancellorsville. His army had more casualties every day of the Seven Days' battle than McClellan's did. He narrowly avoided defeat at Antietam, in a campaign that was ill-considered. He wrecked his own army for offensive operations at Gettysburg in another ill-considered raid. He's way over-rated.

The war was caused by slavery -- by rebels willing to overthrow the government rather than see their peculiar institution be bridled in any way.

These are the facts of the matter, and you don't much like them. I can't help that.

I didn't post anything to you to start this.

I'd suggest that you just let it go.

Walt

As I said before I will say again...

...your interpretation...if it becomes too commonly accepted...will inevitably lead to another war. You are wrong, but I really hope you can learn the lessons of history and understand why your interpretation is a harbinger for war should the reasons for the war be forgotten in favor of your error or propaganda.

Your interpretation and insistence detail a nation that disallows any sovereignty of it's states AND disallows any sovereignty of it's citizens. It should be no great leap of logic, no surprise, nor should it have anything to do with any dark desire in recognizing how this throws the United States back into the heap of nations in history that succumb to internal revolt or becomes weakened internally to allow an external conquorer success.

Your interpretation has been rebutted time and again throughout your tenure here...the only fact of any import was the indisputeable fact that each of the seceding states was re-admitted into the Union after the war by legislatures chosen by Northern States.

That re-admission is an acknowledgement of those states' right to secede...an acknowledgement of the fact of their secession...an acknowledgement of it's legality...and an usurpation and end of states' rights under the Bill of Rights.

The success of the United States HINGES upon the limitations of it's government. IF people like you persuade enough others that those limitations are no more or that they can be avoided via modern interpreted loophole, the United States fails. I didn't post anything for which you should respond, your bin Laden buggering friend did.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.