1913 Gettysburg Reunion of Blue and Gray

Huntington News ^ | June 14, 2013 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

[Bulwyf]

I’m just want the inevitable to start already.

[Bigg Red]

mark

[ops33]

Quite a remarkable man.

[ops33]

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

[rockrr]

I can’t think of any sane person who would.

And yet that's exactly what thousands of them did.

[laplata]

Thank you.

[Ditto]

To bad the South didn’t have a scorched earth policy too. The South was to weak to make it very far into the North. But a good fantasy would be burning New York and DC to the ground.

The Confederates did indeed try to burn New York to the ground. And just like everything else they tried, they failed.

[tanknetter]

The truth is that Confederate troops typically did as much damage as they could whenever they invaded Union states.

Indeed, that was usually a main purpose of their raids -- to secure supplies for themselves and destroy the Union's facilities.

Sure, the example of Lee in Pennsylvania is often cited, but it was more the exception than the rule for Confederate forces operating in Union states & territories.

True Union states and territories, or border states and territories?

I'd consider the two vastly different. Missouri, Kansas and Kentucky for instance saw an enormous amount of brutality - by both sides - that had more to do with the fact that the side those states was going to take was indeterminate. At least in the eyes of a lot of the local population. Plus there were very long-standing internal animosities and feuds in those states that the Civil War allowed to spill into the open.

[man_in_tx]

Yes, after the war, all was eventually forgiven, and nobody was tried as traitors.
But tell us, FRiend, which part of the word “treason” do you not understand?
/////////////

Well, FRiend, I will give you that Robert E. Lee, et al, were “traitors” to the US when you give me that George Washington, et al, were “traitors” to Great Britain.

We celebrate the right to secede from oppressive central Government.

In my view, the Confederates exercised precisely the same prerogative in choosing to secede from the Union that the original Thirteen Colonies did in choosing to secede from the King’s Realm.

Moreover, I have to ask you. What were the Yanks thinking when they actually FORGAVE a bunch of untrustworthy traitors? Answer? I honestly believe that down deep they knew these were no traitors. Subsequent history has borne out the wisdom of this decision (to drop any charges of treason).

Or, my short answer: Treason, my a$$.

[0.E.O]

Well, FRiend, I will give you that Robert E. Lee, et al, were “traitors” to the US when you give me that George Washington, et al, were “traitors” to Great Britain.

I will give you that. Even though the actions of the Founders predates the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution their actions would certainly have qualified as treason by anyone's definition.

In my view, the Confederates exercised precisely the same prerogative in choosing to secede from the Union that the original Thirteen Colonies did in choosing to secede from the King’s Realm.

And I'll grant you your view if you will identify the oppression that caused their secession. Unlike the Founders, who had no say in their government, the Southern states were represented in both houses of Congress, over-represented in the House. Southerners had held a disproportionate number of high level positions in Congress and the government. If the central government was indeed oppressive then the South played a large part in making it so. And replaced it with their own oppressive central government once they rebelled.

What were the Yanks thinking when they actually FORGAVE a bunch of untrustworthy traitors?

When you get right down to it, it was one Yankee who actually FORGAVE the South's acts of treason; Andrew Johnson. He issued three amnesty proclamations during his term which basically pardoned almost all the rebel leadership. He did this against the wishes of Congress, who were all out for a bunch of hangings. So your belief that "down deep they knew these were no traitors" is not supported by the facts.

[rockrr]

There’s precious little comparison between the patriots of 1776 and the insurrectionists of 1861. But at least Washington had the integrity to acknowledge what he was doing was rebellion.

[man_in_tx]

I will give you that. Even though the actions of the Founders predates the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution their actions would certainly have qualified as treason by anyone’s definition.

//////////////

Please show me your posts denouncing Washington, et al, as traitors!

[man_in_tx]

There’s precious little comparison between the patriots of 1776 and the insurrectionists of 1861. But at least Washington had the integrity to acknowledge what he was doing was rebellion.

////////////////

Like it or not, the principle is the same, whether or not you agree with their position.

Free to secede. Deal with it.

Still true today.

[man_in_tx]

I will give you that. Even though the actions of the Founders predates the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution their actions would certainly have qualified as treason by anyone’s definition.

///////////

Secession is not treason. Sorry to disappoint you.

[0.E.O]

Please show me your posts denouncing Washington, et al, as traitors!

I'm not British so I'm unlikely to denounce them the way someone from the UK might. And I would add that Washington, et al, were motivated enough by their cause to win their rebellion. Lee, et al, were not. Winning changes a lot of things.

[man_in_tx]

If the central government was indeed oppressive then the South played a large part in making it so. And replaced it with their own oppressive central government once they rebelled.

///////////////
Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that secession would not have been seen as a viable option if the Southern states felt that the Central Government was responsive to their concerns.

[0.E.O]

Secession is not treason. Sorry to disappoint you.

Secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. Sorry to disappoint you. And I'll agree that that in and of itself was not treason. Where the treason came in to play was when the Southern states chose to war against the government in order to further their aims.

[0.E.O]

Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that secession would not have been seen as a viable option if the Southern states felt that the Central Government was responsive to their concerns.

How was it not?

[man_in_tx]

Lee, et al, were not.

/////////////////

Defeat does not necessarily denote lack of motivation. The Confederates were — in the end — outgunned, outmanned, and — the killer — out-technologied. I think the number of battles where smaller Confederate forces out-fought their more numerous Union opponents weakens your proposition considerably. Though some Southern leaders wanted to continue with a long-term guerilla war, Christian compassion ruled that out for many Southern leaders.

You are correct: Winning changes many things — but not the facts. Only those who get to teach their interpretation of the facts in Government schools. But this is your strongest argument, yet.

[rockrr]

You’re wrong - but I get the impression that you’re no stranger to being wrong.

There was a little controversy over secession - at least the way the slavers practiced it - it was in all the papers. It turns out that on the field of battle, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion your notion comes up short.

Deal with it.