Mr. Peabody and his pet boy.......Sherman.
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.
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 injin
where do they learn all thier history off of T V or the movies?
Mr. Peabody and his pet boy.......Sherman.
what sherman's coven of "common criminals,filth, rapists,thieves,plunderers, torturers & coldblooded MURDERERS" was REALLY GOOD AT was abusing the UNarmed AmerIndians,Asians,Blacks,Jews,Latinos, Roman Catholics & the "poorest of the poor whites".
"the horde of sherman's worst" was BEST at "running from" our armed CSA troops & KILLING UNarmed & HELPLESS CSA POWs on a wholesale basis in the DY's CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
had they spent their time attacking the COLLOBORATORS within the "plantation aristocracy", rather than "partying" with them at the "Big House", NOBODY else would have cared.
fwiw, IF our ancestors had won their war against the DYs, the "planters" would have been NEXT on the "list of enemies".
free dixie,sw
never seen that cartoon.
SORRY.
free dixie,sw
Uhh, and WHAT is "my agenda"?
The federal government was exterminating western tribes for 40 years following the Civil War, with the enthusiastic support of the southern states. In fact, the Indians had been taking it in the shorts for decades before the southern rebellion, both above and below the Mason-Dixon line. Or had you never heard of the Trail of Tears?
Rabidly pro southron.
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.Well, that is your analysis. However, it is wrong. The Supremacy clause means that no state can, by itself, exercise any power or pass any law, or do anything that goes against the Constitution. When you pass a state law to exercise some or all of the powers which are delegated to the Federal Government, that law, act, or exercise of power is illegal, unconstitutional and invalid.
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.Respectfully, this is gibberish. The Constitution, regardless of the romantic notions you may have heard, is not a compact. It is a law. In fact, the highest law in the land.
(I concede that it is often called a compact, even by those who should no better. But technically speaking it is a law. So if your thought of posting quotes from people referring to it as a compact, please save yourself the effort. I've read them all, and they are speaking poetically or are simply wrong. It is, in technical terms, a law.)
The Constitution is so great a law, in fact, that no state can do anything, pass any law or take any act which goes against it; and any such law that is passed has no legal effect. That is what happened in case of the Southern attempt at secession.
The Tenth Amendment specifically deals with "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," however, the powers we are discussing here, for example:
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.
It says the Constitution, laws made pursuant to it and all Treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Not only can a state not pass a law negating a treaty, it cannot pass a law negating a federal law, nor pass a law negating the Constitution itself. And the last of these is what the Southern states tried to do. 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.
But that is the point. By attempting to rescind their prior ratification (if such a thing is even possible), they are passing a law or taking an action that goes against the Constitution. By automatic operation of the Supremacy Clause, as a matter of law, that state action is void. Doesn't exist. Has no power. Is a legal nullity. 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.
But the form of government, or the lack of prohibition is simply irrelevant, because what is unconstitutional is trying to reclaim powers delegated to the United States, not the manner chosen to try to reclaim them. 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.
But that's the kicker. They never get to the "having legally seceded" part, because the act of secession, being a legislative act or a declaration by the people in convention, is never a legal act. It is never legally viable, it is dead on arrival, the instant it is passed it is an illegal act and cannot legally do anything because it has the effect of negativing the Constitutional delegation of powers.
Secession by successful revolution or by Amendment are both legal, the first de facto, the second de jure, but what happened in the 1860s simply didn't do it.
>>Sherman, who had just finished supper at his headquarters, stepped out into the yard, “saw the darkness lit up with the lurid hue of conflagration” and remarked, “They have brought it on themselves.”<<
Isn't this what the Muslims said after 9-11?
"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. And I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave-in until we are whipped - or they are." -- William Sherman
Or was it because if they remained loyal to the Union they faced being thrown in jail? It was the legislatures of North Carolina and Georgia who pushed for Cherokee land to be confiscated and the tribes expelled. Georgia and North Carolina militia which made up the troops that did it.
TEXAS FOREVER!
>>"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. And I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave-in until we are whipped - or they are." -- William Sherman<<
So this justifies killing innocent people? Old women and children were Sherman's enemy? Is the Holocaust justified, too?
The Holocaust was a systematic attempt to exterminate a whole race of people, and the southron insistance on using it as a comparison to Sherman's actions is insulting to both the Union soldiers and the Jewish victims of the Nazis. A better comparison would be with the allied air campaign in World War II. Innocent civilians were killed there, too. Far more systematically than anything Sherman contemplated. Private homes and businesses were targeted by allied bombers. If Sherman was a criminal then wouldn't Harris and Arnold be criminals, too?
The Allied bombing campaign was a response to Hitler's targeting of civilians. I wouldn't compare that with Sherman's atrocities.
Do you know of a scholarly work on the Sherman march to the sea? Something that separates fact from fiction regarding the treatment of civilians?
I thought this was credible, judging by all of the references listed...scroll down to the part about Sherman:
http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_/atrocities/NorthernAtrocities.htm
"Here's raising a toast in honor of the brave fighters on both sides "
3 Cheers ! Hoorah!
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.