Posted on 08/03/2005 10:47:14 PM PDT by churchillbuff
A city in east-central Ohio in September will celebrate Army Gen. William T. Sherman and the 125th anniversary of his ``War is hell'' speech.
The events will be Sept. 23-25, mostly in Lancaster in Fairfield County, the birth place of the Union Civil War general who marched in 1864 from Atlanta to Savannah through the heart of the Confederacy.
The celebration will include nationally recognized scholars and authors and hundreds of re-enactors portraying notable Ohioans and key Civil War figures. There will be a Civil War tea and fashion show and history walks featuring a Civil War encampment.
There will also be a Sept. 23 opening dinner at the Franklin Park Conservatory in Columbus. The speaker will be Dr. Richard McMurry, a Civil War author and historian. Re-enactors will portray Sherman and Ohio's own President Rutherford B. Hayes.
Sherman (1820-1891) delivered his famous speech on Aug. 11, 1880, at the Civil War Soldiers' Reunion at the Ohio State Fairgrounds (now the Columbus Park Conservatory).
``The war is away back in the past and you can tell what books cannot. When you talk, you come down to practical realities, just as they happened.... There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell. You can bear this warning voice to generations yet to come. I look upon war with horror; but if it has to come, I am here,'' Sherman told 10,000 Civil War veterans.
Sherman's birthplace in Lancaster is a museum run by the Fairfield Heritage Association.
For more information, contact the association at 105 E. Wheeling St., Lancaster, OH 43130, 740-654-9923. The Internet site is www.lancaster-oh.com/Sherman.
Au contraire - I am delighted to be a citizen of these United States. Please don't assume that expressing a desire for constitutional government to be followed (the rule of law) indicates that I am in any way un-American. In 2000, every true conservative desired that the rules of law be adhered to (or why have them if they can be rewritten by judges at will?). The same applies to 1860 - the law should have been followed. And unless you can cite a law, or a specific clause prohibiting secession, the seceding states were legally withing their right to secede from a union that they deemed to have been violated and broken.
You're more to be pitied than censored: this great country has given so many so much, and is the beacon of freedom around the world, and you seem to despise it.
I despise the actions of the union government from 1860 forward with respect to secession and reconstruction, and the destruction of LIMITED government - the dream of every true conservative.
There are, right now, hundreds upon hundreds of millions in the world huddling in filthy hovels or suffering under the grinding bootheel of despotic governments who fervently wish they had just 1/100th of the opportunities you were handed with your birthright.
Then YOU liberate them, or I can liberate them, or we both can fund efforts to do so. Washington warned of entangling alliances, but actions by our government to do so only create animosity and hatred for the US: 9/11 ring any bells? We're loved around the world aren't we? </sarcasm> Of note, the union is comprised of states and the Constitution prohibits states from engaging in war 'unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger' of invasion.
Yet you turn your nose up at it and publicly express contemptuous disdain for the unified nation that is symbolized by the Stars & Stripes countless millions yearn to live free beneath with this antebellum Lost Cause Squad nonsense.
A federated republic, not a single 'nation', that what the 'united' in United States means, also note that States is plural, not singular. We are the United States, not the United State. Words have meaning.
Secondly, my attitude towards government is the same as Jefferson and the founding fathers, that 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness'. Now if you are adverse to those sentiments, then you are against the principles of liberty, freedom and self-government. There's noting 'Lost Cause' about it - postbellum, antebellum or otherwise.
As I said, more to be pitied than censored...
Lincoln believed, advocated and practiced censorship. I pity those that worship him.
I have a better idea, billbears. Why not quote Lincoln accurately?
"The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connetion with capital---that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either hired laborers, or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the ``mud-sill'' theory.
But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life, in the condition of a hired laborer, that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed---that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior---greatly the superior---of capital.
Forgot a couple of words there didn't you? Why not read the quote in context? Or will that not fit your agenda?
Prior to the arrival of this butcher on the military scene, civilized nations believed...But what was civilized about a people willing to rebel in order to keep other human beings as property, as one would keep a cow or a chair? Nothing. And if these same people were unwilling to deny the blessings of civilization to those they held in bondage, then they had no right nor reasonable expectation to be treated in a civilized manner as one would treat a civilized nation.
While Lincoln and some Northerners can be chastised for not making the abolition of slavery and the punishment of its practitioners an explicit initial casus belli, he did come around.
Knits make sweaters. Nits make lice.
Besides that quote is attibuted to John Chivington and not William Sherman.
Ever read the Constitution? From Article I: 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States'. See Article I §8 for enumerated powers, §9 for specific limits on the federal Congress, and §10 for limits on the states (and no, a prohibition on secession is not enumerated).
The Constitution is NOT a 'living document'. The framers provided for its evolution via Amendment process (see Article V).
BOTH groups were notorious for abusing, torturing & KILLING innocent, unarmed civilians, rather than primarily fighting UNIFORMED/ARMED men.
in our language (TSALAGI) sherman's name is : UTSADISHI = KILLS THE CHILDREN!!!!
FACT!!!
free dixie,sw
The North was not fighting the Civil War to end slavery - ever. The North was fighting the Civil War to preserve the Union.
The average Southerner was not fighting the war to preserve Slavery. He was fighting it to protect his State against what he felt was an unconstitutional invasion the Federal Government. I agree with him. The Constitution is an agreement between the individual states and the Federal Government. There is nothing in to prevent a State from seceeding.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure taken reluctantly and only designed to secure foreign endorsement of the War of Northern Aggression. Further, it freed no slaves as it only applied to those states and areas in active rebellion against the Union at the time and thus was of no real effect.
There were many Northerners who supported slavery or hated blacks and many Southerners, including Lee and others, who disapproved of Slavery.
The majority of Southerners were not slave-owners.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And once you start down the slippery slope of justifying brutality against civilians in warfare you wind up with situations like the Washita (spelling), Sand Creek, Concentration Camps for Boers, the bombing of London, the Rape of Nanking, etc., etc.
Slavery should have been abolished at the time the American Rvolution occurred. It wasn't not just because of Southern slave owners, but also because of Yankee Slave traders and the Triangle trade.
I have, many times. And I don't recall where it explicitly approves the establishment or funding for a Secretary of State or any other cabinet officer. Can you point that part out to me please?
The Constitution is NOT a 'living document'. The framers provided for its evolution via Amendment process (see Article V).
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people"; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves." -- Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/tom_quick/8.html?sect=8
You got me on the Knits versus nits.
But check the above. I did a search on webcrawler and apparently some character named Tom Quick made that statement before Chivington. It may have been a common remark by anti-Indian Whites. Maybe it has its roots even further back with "Kill them all and let the Lord sort them out" made during the Albigensian Crusade.
Given Sherman's attitude towards Indians, it wouldn't have surprised me if he said it also.
Which is why Mr. Peabody cartoons never made it big with Cherokee children I suppose.
Yeah but why let the truth get in the way of your agenda, right?
slavery was only an ISSUE to the slave-OWNERS & a few thousand "abolitionists" in 1860. both of those SMALL groups cared PASSIONATELY about the "peculiar institution".
almost NOBODY else cared a damn in 1860 about the "plight of the slaves". they SHOULD HAVE; they did NOT!
from the southern perspective the WBTS was ONLY about FREEDOM FOR DIXIE. from the northern view, the war was ONLY about "Preserving the Union".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
"The RED SAVAGES are not human beings, have NO SOULS & deserve only DEATH!" (emphasis: MINE)
free dixie,sw
Many if not most of the people in East Tennessee saw the Union army as liberators from the rebel bushwackers, thugs and gangsters that had taken control during the rebellion. I had a great great great uncle who suffered from the rebs, an older man who had money extorted from him by the top local Confederate gangster based in Cleveland Tennessee. I had a great great great grandfather who was persecuted by the rebs because he was a preacher who apparently had a higher regard for what he believed than the rebel gospel. The Union army brought law and justice to the land. Even many rebels joined the Union forces to rid the area of Confederate criminals.
Only the most hardcore rebels resented the arrival of the Union army in East Tennessee. Here's quotes from one based in Cleveland, Tennessee on May 4, 1864.
"There is not an hour in the day that I don't pray to our Heavenly father for our success and the protection of our friends whose mission it is to face Sherman's terrible army of rag jackers, ground hogs etc...."
The next day the same young lady's diary shows why Sherman and the Yankees were so mean.
"We do our own work....It fatigues us a great deal as we are not accustomed to it"
Like many hardcore rebels, this family was a slaveowner household. And after the arrival of the vicious Sherman and the Yankees, the slaves were gone and they had to do their own work!!!How wicked!! How unfair!!!
'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land'. The is nothing in the Supremacy clause that prohibits secession. It must be in the Constitution, or else in a federal law made pursuant to a delegated power to prohibit secession. Unless you can post either, you're simply blowing smoke.
None prohibit it because it can be legally accomplished through an Amendment.
The states, as parties to the compact, did not require confirmation/approval for their departure. The federal government has not been delegated the authority to prevent their departure. Specifically, the states adopted the 10th Amendment to preclude ludicrous, inane interpretations such as what you put forth, viz: that the states must petition the federal government and approve via amendment a power that was never delegated to the federal government to begin with.
No federal law prohibits succession that I know of, but the secession before the Civil War violated the Supremacy Clause.
I'll give you credit, you are honest about secession not being illegal per federal law. Now if you could simply state the section/clause that prohibits secession. Remember, the Supremacy clause simply states that the Constitution - where it has been delegated a power - is supreme. For secession to be unconstitutional, there must be some clause prohibiting it - not simply a claim that the Constitution is supreme.
Thus no law can legally be passed nor convention of the people legally make a declaration (this is, btw, just another way of passing a law) that grants back to the state a power given to the Federal Government in the Constitution, because it conflicts with the Supremacy Clause as is void ab initio. It just automatically has no legal effect, and is fully unconstitutional.
Absolutely correct. As long as a state chooses to remain a member of the union, it cannot reclaim a delegated power absent a federal amendment. The states seceded, withdrew, rescinded their prior ratifications via conventions of the people of each state. Such conventions were not prohibited - the people being masters of the government - not it's servant. Specifically, the Constitution requires that each state have a republican (representative) government, which the seceding states did employ for secession via conventions of the people.
Having legally seceded, the states are no longer bound to refrain from exercising any power they formerly delegated to the federal government, they have reclaimed their 'delegated' powers, and have perfect right to exercise powers formerly prohibited to them while members of the federal union.
So unless you know of a way to get around the Supremacy Clause, the only resolution that comports with the text of the Constitution is that the secessions were unconstitutional.
For secession to be illegal, it must be prohibited somewhere in the Constitution. Conventions of the people must be prohibited. Duration of membership must be specified as permanent and irrevocable. Absent these, the only resolution is that secession was legal, as the 10th Amendment confirms that such powers were retained by the states.
While the average Southerner was fighting out of understandable (although I believed misplaced) patriotic feelings, the driving force behind the policy makers and the politics that set the stage for them to express that patriotism was fundamentally slavery.
As I've explained elsewhere on this thread, the Supremacy Clause made the attempted secession in this case illegal and of no legal effect, although it can legally be done through amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was a way, Constitutionally, for Lincoln to effectuate the emancipation of slaves. He was acutely aware of the fact that he did not have the power to set every slave free in the whole US. And, in fact, the territorial limitations were unfortunately necessary in order to make in a constitutional act.
The feelings of people towards blacks or the disapproval of southerners towards slavery is simply beside the point. The evil is the existence of slavery as an institution and the governmental apparatus that permitted it to exist. One can recognize Robt. E. Lee's humane treatment of his slaves and dislike of the institution, while still finding his participation in the institution to be vile and abhorrent. I believe that if he truly viewed the institution as evil, he would have agreed to that sentiment.
You are correct that slavery should have been abolished in 1776. While I would contend that the Southern states bear the bigger share of the responsibility for the fact that this did not occur, those interests in the North which were partnered in this evil are also clearly culpable.
As for brutality towards civilians during wartime, that is the rule, unfortunately, not the exception. Because when you get right down to it, governments don't fight governments--they are impersonal, non-corporal things--people fight people. And often the civilians on the other side are the very people who are supporting the person across the line trying to kill you, and without whose work the person across the line would have to quit without killing you or the men next to you. Is it moral to kill 100 civilians to save the life of 500 soldiers?
(I think it would be interesting to discuss, as a theoretical matter, whether there is anything illicit in attacking civilians in a democracy. They, after all, are the holders of the state's sovereignty, and ultimately responsible for the exercise of power in their name. A discussion for another time, perhaps.)
Sherman was one of America's greatest Generals, a man of Honor just as much as Lee. Because of his "pillage"; hundreds of thousands of lives were spared.
CGVet58
(quote)isn't it interesting how the Yankee's write their own versions of history ? AMEN
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.