Posted on 04/27/2004 6:28:54 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:28:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
But I am enjoying this one immensely.
I have studied Jackson during the Seven Days. That's going to entail a long post from me... and I don't have time.
No, I won't give passing acknowledgement that he might have been lethargic based on the Seven Days. Those Seven Days were an aberration of his performance... they were not the norm.
No, "Stonewall" wasn't a curse. I've heard that before too. But you don't try rallying your men like Bee did (who was very much alive when he said it) by cursing Jackson.
Yes, we agree that Lee was blind. But he did it to himself (something I've never understood) Read The Saber and The Scapegoat if you are interested in the controversy surrounding Stuart's movements. It is a fantastic book.
If we are going to move the battle of Gettysburg out of the what if realm and argue what happened that would change about 90% of what I've been saying since I've been dealing in hypotheticals.
Stuart's order on June 23rd said for him to feel out Union position. If he found the Union Army in movement, he was to ride around them and meet Ewell at Harrisburg. Mosby confirms this since it was Mosby's idea. When Stuart moved, he found the 2nd Corp across his path. He sent a messenger to inform Lee and continued his ride. Again, the Saber and the Scapegoat is a remarkable book. Very well detailed.
I will check out Gringrich's book. But, I have two on Jackson to finish. One on Gettysburg still to go.
I have so much loved these posts.
Maybe we can debate Jackson's performance during the Seven Days. I think when were done, you will see it wasn't as historians say.
Your supposition re: me is misplaced.
Bradford was given a chance to surrender and save his men - and refused. They died. Yankees used their losses at Ft Pillow for a PR tactic to stir hatred against Confederates.
I'm sure you and I are sensible enough to recognize the difference between combatants and civilians. Sherman and his Yankee thugs didn't make any distinction - neither did his troops discern between necessities for civilian use and products for the war - they either stole all they could or destroyed it. Had the Geneva Convention been in existence, Sherman and his army could have easily been tried for war crimes of engaging unarmed, civilian noncombatants in acts of war.
I said you "implied" it when you contrasted the southern voter with the northern voter. The difference is rural vs urban, not north vs south.
So, which is it?
Which what? Gays go to SF.
The fact that San Francisco is a city and not rural or the fact that gays tend to congregate there because they feel right at home?
It's their meeting place. It may not have anything to do with a lot of the citizens.
In your map, is not San Diego, California blue because, being a "Navy town" it attracts conservative retired veterans who would never consider moving to San Francisco?
"Attracting veterans" is significant information, just as comparing the populations of rural vs urban is significant information.
In your map, are Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio not considerd "cities"? Are they not blue because a Left-Winger who feels perfectly at home in < sarcasm> the great urban centers < /sarcasm> of Martha's Vineyard and Northern Maine would not be caught dead living in a conservative Texas city?
There are liberals everywhere, but my map proves that rural vs urban is where most of the dichotomy is, a fact you didn't mention.
The North has been a mecca for liberalism, socialism and every left-wing ideology that immigrated from Europe to America at the end of the 19th Century and in the 20th Century.
Not according to my map. Some southern areas are just as liberal. Chicago's suburbs are mostly Bush counties. Then look at the South around Miami, mostly Gore counties. So while liberals are in cities, it doesn't seem to matter whether they are southern cities or northern cities.
After landing in America, every immigrant group tends to go where it feels most at home. The Scandinavians tended to go to far northern, more rural areas that reminded of home. The Cubans tended to go to South Florida that reminded them of Cuba. The European Leftists tended to go to Northern cities where they felt at home and created the left-wing meccas that are found there today.
Not according to my map. Large cities in the south are just as liberal as Chicago according to voting patterns.
This entire exchange with you started when I pointed out to another poster that the South is just as much a part of "America" as the old Union states and, today, is much more representative of traditional American values than are the old Union states.
No it started when you neglected to point out the difference between rural and urban voters, you left out significant information that I felt should be expanded on. You wanted to imply that is was the area that makes a voter, my map shows that's not the case.
Left-wingers are drawn to New England and New York like flies are drawn to honey.
Because of higher populations. Atlanta has CNN. Nashville is getting nasty too. Miami was all Gore.
If resurrected from their battlefield graves, Union soldiers would feel right at home with the average Southerner today and would look in horror at what has become of the old Union states.
Oh baloney. Besides the horror of high taxes (which the southerners approved of through their overwhelming support of socialists like FDR and Wilson), the union soldiers would be proud of the nation they saved.
You are a liar.
The point I made was that the slavery argument was not one based on morality. If it were so then the North would have first outlawed it in its own territory. The fact that they did not, before during and after the War shows that it was a political issue.
They were ramping it down. The south vowed to perpetuate it.
The EP in reality freed no one, as it did not free slaves in Union controlled areas, and of course freed no one in CSA controlled areas.
The freed slaves that tagged along with the Union armies would disagree.
Bottom line no one was freed. Typical hypocrisy showed by socialists. The fact that Linkum offered to allow the South to return to the Union and still keep slavery also shows this to be true.
He had to save the union before he could end slavery.
What do you mean that Linkum did not control the Northern States? He had absolute dictatorial power, that dog won't hunt.
He didn't have dictatorial powers over the North.
Again your shallowness of reason jumps out. If you read more carefully you will note I was not calling Linkum a nut case (although a case could be made) or his regionally biased radical party "nutcases, but was only referring to the lunatic fringe of the day, the abolitionist extremists who were fomenting all kinds of hate. A comparison to today would be the radical fringe we just saw marching in DC.
They had a thing in common, they were against slavery. For this you call them "nutcases".
Yes there are always those who believe something Constitutional is wrong. Slavery was part of the original compact between the States. Just becuase certain individuals or groups do not agree does not allow force of arms to impose their will on the majority, that would be anarchy.
The South conveniently fired the first shot allowing us to end slavery.
The Constitution allowed for slavery,...
I said "spirit" of the Constitution as declared in the preamble.
...any who opposed slavery were opposed to the Constitution.
It had to be changed.
Jesus and the gospels referred to slavery in the neutral, acknowledge it existed, did not rail against it, basically the Bible shows that slavery was just the way it was. It did rail against mistreatment of slaves, but not against slavery as an institution. The Old Testament shows the nation of Israel klling and enslaving its neighbors at the request of God himself. Sounds like you have issues with the Constitution and God, that is another thread.
Leviticus 25.46 says not to enslave Israelites, and since the crucifixion, anyone who believes in Jesus is an Israelite in spirit, in keeping with God's promise to Abraham. Blacks believed in Jesus, therefore they were not to be enslaved.
No, slavery was an institution that has existed since the beginning, with Gods approval (see Old testament).
Lev 25.46 disagrees.
Tyranny is the government oppressing its people for its own gain and/or ideology.
That's what slavery is.
Linkum as with all socialist dictators who followed despise any controlls on the government (thats why Linkum suspended the Constitution) the only controls are to be on the people not the government. The South merely wanted to go back to the original intent of our Founders, the CSA constitution was virtually identical to our own original. If the North did not mind being led by a tyrant and a radical party that was OK, but just let us go.
The south just wanted their filthy lucre, slavery is not freedom.
That may true, the South was primarily agrarian, while the North chose the "Industrial Revolution" and its attendant exploitation of immigrants, and corruption imposed by the the Robber Barons.
Unlike slaves, they are free to leave at any time.
Each region chose their respective paths via free will. As mentioned before we were essentially two nations, the agrarian South and the industrailized North. Now we can argue morality of slavery vs exploited masses of immigrants but the War of Northern Aggression was fought over politics, not morality as pointed out before.
It was fought to save the union.
If the South were out to keep slavery then why secede in the first place? They already had slavery, duh!
Their Declarations make clear that with the election of Lincoln, the writing was on the wall that slavery was going to end.
Later when Linkum offered to cease hostilities and allow slavery to continue why did'nt the South take that up?
Because they, like Lincoln, knew that an amendment could end slavery at any time.
The ordnances of secession refer to freedom and tyranny repeatedly, so maybe they seceded for other reasons than slavery?
The Declarations of Secession make clear that secession was to perpetuate slavery.
Yes outside of any mitigating factors that was a war crime. However We were not there, however by that time after 3+ years of enduring war crimes by Sherman...
Sherman attacked supplies, like any good general does.
...and his ilk and the obvious taunting by the "freed" blacks...
"Taunting"??!! Poor babies! Taunting justifies war crimes against POWs??!!
...and the war criminal Yankee scum were factors in what happened. There may have been an attempt to break out or some insurrection that precipated the response. Up till this incident Forrest was spotless in protocol. If you want to talk war crimes, talk to Columbia.
He was a murderer of POWs and then founded the KKK where more murders of blacks took place and admitted so himself and then ran when he knew that the murders could not continue.
The South just wanted to be let alone in peace, otherwise they would have invaded the North first, or would have sacked DC after the first Manassass after putting to rout the Yankee invaders.
They stole federal property and fired upon federal property which was asking for war.
I am sure you are referring to the Sumter incident where no one was killed as starting the War,...
They were firing huge marshmallows or something??!! lol
...as that is what CNN spews.
It's a historical fact that Fort Sumter was attacked.
The truth was that Linkum wanted war, and was looking for any incident to excuse it, and if the South did not "start" it then he would have pulled an LBJ and manufactured a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
We'll never klnow, will we, since the south so-conveniently stole property and attacked federal property.
The War started when Linkum "stole the election".
Speaking of CNN...
You are right, Sherman killed them before he "processed" them as POWs. I guess "supplies" were defined as the entire City of Columbia, and any farm that happened to be in his path.
I guess so. Just as we firebombed Germany and Tokyo, and attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's what war is.
Not only did Sherman destroy any foodstuffs already produced, but tore up fields, shot livestock and burned down the homes of the poor farmers white and black. In 1865 the War was over, so whats the point other than vindictiveness and hate? So who which side was motivated by hate?
The point was to win quickly thereby saving more lives. It was ermployed against Germany and Japan also. Do you condemn our actions in WW2 also? With a name like "Stalin", you may I guess.
Yes, if it is response to lynchings and oppression of your own.
So you support the massacre of POWs? You are showing the ugly side of neoconfederatism.
The KKK was formed in response to what was being done by the oppressive carpetbagger occupiers and their minions. They had no choice to fight back.
Baloney. Their purpose was to keep people from voting and to keep blacks down.
The reconstruction period was one of oppression, corruption, and murder from both sides. One reason our nation still has some freedom is due our not laying down in the face of tyranny, as opposed to the PC weenies of Europe or Canada. The original KKK was such a response of a people who refuse to be oppressed.
They were simply murderers. I'm amazed that you defend their murders and anti-democratic ways.
What does that comment have to with racism in the North?
You said blacks and whites got along better in the south. They had to or they would be killed for the slightest offense, just as in any tyranny.
Linkum was an absolute dictator aka tyrant. The point that the Frenchman made was that the whites of the Northeast hated and despised the blacks, and that in the South there was much more harmony between the races.
Because of tyranny. So people don't like each other, at least in the north perpetual slavery wasn't being threatened against them.
That is another reason why the "slavery being immoral issue" did not have legs in the North, the majority hated blacks, were afraid of them or could care less. It was only the radical fringe abolitionist element that spewed the hatred and vitriol against the South as a moral issue.
And deservedly so.
Linkum later incorporated some of the arguments of this fringe element to help give his cause of tyranny a "righteous cloak". However his actions belie any of these moral arguments played any part of Norths aggression agains the South.
The war was fought to save the union. The end of slavery was a fringe benfit Lincoln took advantage of while he could.
Tell that to Spartacus
Spartacus' army basically committed suicide. They could've left Italy but didn't. They turned back toward Rome and were killed.
Ah but you did. Remember all 13 States agreed to allow slavery in perpetuity with the ratification of the Constitution.
The Constitution can be amended.
It was the breach of this compact that invalidated the Compact. Your Underground Railroad only worked because the northern States aided and abetted same. This was in violation of the Constitution.
A Constutution that had slavery was not complete.
Once you have a member or members of a pact arbitrarily breach a covenant, then the injured party can void it (contract law) The South then decided to leave the Compact that was violated.
Citizens took action against slavery, not state governments.
Again some people disagreed with slavery but that was part of the Compact, what if other groups disagreed with other parts of the Constitution and arbitrarily decided not to follow along with whatever they disagreed with at the time.
So according to you if one citizen does something unconstitutional, that gives any state to right to not live up to the Constitution?
Again the result is anarchy. The Underground Railroad was an example of disobedience by certain States.
Citizens, not states.
Maybe the North should have seceded if they no longer agreed with the Compact?
The northern states kept the compact, it was a few citizens that ran the Underground Railroad, not state governments, and rightfully so.
No Answer?
What do you mean no answer? Do you actually think that was a tough question? LOL
CNN is not the answer, neither is Arlen Sphincter
Your posts resemble CNN with the elitism.
What about the firebombing of Germany and Tokyo, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Same tactics, isn't it? Looks like war to me, which is what the south wanted when they stole federal property and attacked the US.
Tell us all about it.
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.