Posted on 09/17/2020 3:01:58 AM PDT by nathanbedford
September 17, 1862, the last hour of the bloodiest day in American military history, Lee knew that his beleaguered line must at last give way to overwhelming odds and the Army of Northern Virginia verged on destruction and, with it, destruction of the Confederacy itself.
Through one of history's oddist twists Lee's orders dividing his army had been discovered by common soldier in an open field days before wrapped around three cigars. The normally slothful McClellan was for once animated by the knowledge that Lee's army could be destroyed piecemeal. Lee drew up his army along Antietam Creek near the village of Sharpsburg Maryland to defend itself while he awaited the remnants of his army to come to his aid and rebalance, at least in part, the overwhelming material and numerical advantage of the Yankees.
Shelby Foote in his first volume of Civil War narrative describes the forced march of AP Hill from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg:
Jacket off because of the heat, [AP Hill] rode in his bright red battle shirt alongside the panting troops, prodding laggards with the point of his saber. Beyond this, he had no dealings with stragglers, but left them winded by the roadside, depending on them to catch up in time if they could. Not many could, apparently; for he began the march with about 5000 men and ended with barely 3000.
Here was the decisive moment and Lee knew that all would soon be lost. Shelby Foote describes one of the most dramatic scenes of the war:
Observing a column moving up from the south west along the ridge line, Lee called to an artillery lieutenant on the way to the front with a section of guns: "what troops are those?" The lieutenant offered him his telescope. "Can't use it," Lee said, holding up a bandaged hand. The lieutenant trained and focus the telescope. "They are flying the United States flag," he reported. Lee pointed to the right, where another distant column was approaching from the southwest nearly perpendicular to the first and repeated the question. The lieutenant swung the glass in that direction, peered intently, and announced: "they are flying the Virginia and Confederate flags." Lee suppressed his elation, although the words refilled his one hope for deliverance from defeat. "It is AP Hill from Harpers Ferry," he said calmly.
As Shelby Foote wrote about AP Hill, "as was his custom, he struck hard." And so the Army of Northern Virginia was spared, but the North kept the field enabling Lincoln to claim victory and to issue his Emancipation Proclamation thus recasting the whole character of the war.
My great-grandfather was there 158 years ago today.
The North didn’t invade the South. They South choose violent secession from the North and opened fire on Ft. Sumter. Stop the petty fogging. It isn’t history you’re offering, it’s an opinion coupled with conjecture.
Whatever, donuts. Now, climb back into your bottle...you’ve had your two minutes of hate with me...
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your one facts.
Virginia voluntarily and democratically joined the union in 1789 and it voluntarily and democratically withdrew from the union in 1861.
You tell me where it says in the Constitution that a state cannot leave.
also, where does the constitution say a state can not be purged?
I don’t drink. Haven’t in thirty years. Climb back into yours Reb loser.
No it didn’t. South Carolina did. South Carolina was part of the Confederacy, was it not? You Lost Causers are just never going to accept the fact you started a war and lost.
You call yourself conservatives when in reality you’re Democrats.
You call yourself conservatives when in reality you’re Democrats.
What does it matter what I call myself or what you think I am in reality? What matters is whether I have marshaled facts on my side of an argument against facts which you marshaled on your side of an argument. This is not the first time you've gotten personal. Let's let go of the ad hominem and discuss an issue on the merits, shall we?
Nonsense.
woodpusher: "They are not sources which override a half dozen Supreme Court opinions."
No, but they override your opinions which are quite different from SCOTUS.
woodpusher: ""My" opinions were quotes of Supreme Court opinions."
Rubbish.
woodpusher: "Respectfully, your are sir, you do not know what you are talking about.
You have no clue and just make stuff up, and it spews forth, sort of like your guru Joe Biden."
Hogwash, beginning with your word "respectfully".
woodpusher: "In international law, the United States does not get to unilaterally decide what nations do, and do no exist, by granting or withholding official recognition.
Your legal pontifications, pulled from your butt, are a joke."
More drivel.
woodpusher: "In Brown v. Hiatts, 82 U.S. 177, 183 (1872) "It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President."
Right, as the Protector said, for purposes of that particular commercial contract case.
woodpusher: "It can't get any clearer than that.
That holding applies to all cases for all legal purposes.
It is most certainly not restricted in its application to commercial contracts.
You made that crap up, but you can cite no legal source for it."
Bilge.
woodpusher: "You are crazed with hate and an overly vivid imagination.
Seek help."
Poppycock -- just projecting your own mental defects, typical Democrat.
Get help.
woodpusher: "Just because the existence of the Chinese government reduces your prior blaterings ad absurdum does not justify yor fantasy that they do not exist as both the de facto and de jure government of China.
The legal existence of a government does not rely upon having diplomatic relations with the United States."
I said they were not legitimate before January 1, 1979 and are still not.
All the rest of that is just your stuff & nonsense.
woodpusher: "You are crazed with hate and an overly vivid imagination.
Seek help."
Drivel -- projecting your own mental defects, typical Democrat.
Get help.
The key fact is that Lee and eventually all Confederates were pardoned by President Andrew Johnson.
Johnson's final pardon was quite specific:
This case came years after the lawful withdrawal of the southern states from the union.
Did you know the Supreme Court said that blacks were property and not people? Did you know the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was constitutional? Did you like those decisions, too?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the supreme court. Pray that this remains true.
There was nothing lawful about secessions beginning in December 1860.
Even Doughfaced Northern Democrat President, James Buchanan, acknowledged secessionists had no legal justification.
Our Founders both practiced and advocated "secession" under two, but only two conditions, neither of which existed in 1860:
You need to learn some real history.
It should also be noted that Lee was commended by many Union upper echelon in government and the military for going the extra mile to reunify the government.
The South could have waged a 100 year war of guerrilla tactics that would make the Vietcong look like Crackerjacks.
Was Madison the Sovereign? Of course not. The people were and are. Madison’s comments were made before the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The 10th amendment states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The people retain their sovereign right to assemble and to set policy for their sovereign states. That would include leaving the union. It’s as obvious as the paper it’s written on.
Madison is widely acknowledged as the "father of the Constitution".
So Madison's opinions on what the Constitution says and means carry a lot of weight.
And you, sir, are widely acknowledged as the "father" of what, exactly?
So your opinions carry weight with who, exactly?
Captain Jack Aubrey: "Madison’s comments were made before the adoption of the Bill of Rights."
I posted the link to Madison's words, it would have taken you just a few seconds to check it out and learn that's not true.
In fact, those words from Madison are in a letter dated February 15, 1830, long after the Bill of Rights (which Madison helped write) was ratified.
Captain Jack Aubrey: "The 10th amendment states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In no document from that time does any Founder ever claim those words were intended to allow an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
Such claims only arose long after the original Founders were dead, buried & unable to speak for themselves.
Captain Jack Aubrey: "The people retain their sovereign right to assemble and to set policy for their sovereign states.
That would include leaving the union.
It’s as obvious as the paper it’s written on."
It's only "obvious" to people who hate the Constitution, hate their fellow Americans and are willing to wage war against us to protect their "states' rights" to, for example, legalize slavery.
The difference between you and me is I love our constitution and you hate it. It doesn’t mean what it says, it only means what you think it says. What’s the difference between you and any left wing nut case.
You don’t believe we’re a nation of laws. You believe we are a nation of men. We must rely on Madison and not the words of the constitution itself. The people who ratified the constitution in Virginia is who I rely on and they understood that it was a voluntary compact that could be abandoned voluntarily by the people. What sort of a republic would not allow the people to decide their future in fate?
You don’t believe the people are sovereign. And you believe the constitution is a suicide pact. Perhaps you’re right
That's claptrap, since all conservatives love our Constitution and wish to preserve it against the machinations of Democrats, like yourself, sir.
Captain Jack Aubrey: "It doesn’t mean what it says, it only means what you think it says."
That's blather, since the Constitution means what our Founders said it means, and no Founders' opinions weigh stronger than those of James Madison, who I quoted.
Captain Jack Aubrey: "You don’t believe we’re a nation of laws.
You believe we are a nation of men.
We must rely on Madison and not the words of the constitution itself."
More tripe, since we conservatives are all about "Founders' Original Intent".
You Democrats are all about reading into their words whatever cause-of-the-day animates your fantasies.
In the years before 1860 you Democrats were driven insane by your need to protect & defend slavery and so read into the Constitution an unlimited right of secession at pleasure.
But no Founder ever proposed or supported such an idea.
Captain Jack Aubrey: "The people who ratified the constitution in Virginia is who I rely on and they understood that it was a voluntary compact that could be abandoned voluntarily by the people.
What sort of a republic would not allow the people to decide their future in fate?"
That's nonsense because no Founder, including the Virginia ratifiers in 1788, ever proposed or supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
In Virginia's case they were quite specific in referring back to conditions of our Declaration of Independence:
Captain Jack Aubrey: "You don’t believe the people are sovereign.
And you believe the constitution is a suicide pact.
Perhaps you’re right"
That's pure bunk, but you Democrats were willing to wage war against the Constitution and the United States in 1860, just as today, in order to preserve your own special privileges like slavery then, abortion today.
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.