Posted on 04/27/2022 9:57:50 AM PDT by Borges
There is nothing stranger in American history than the up-and-down reputation of Ulysses S. Grant.
Grant, who was born April 27, 1822, was the commanding general who ended the Civil War. He managed the great campaigns that captured Vicksburg and Richmond, saved Chattanooga, and compelled the surrender of Robert E. Lee and the main Confederate field army, and did it so well that President Abraham Lincoln apologized for not showing him enough confidence. Grant’s “Personal Memoirs,” published after he died in 1885, are a landmark of 19th-century American prose.
Grant may be a greater example even than Lincoln of the American rags-to-riches story. In 1861 he was working in his father’s leather-goods store in Galena, Ill. Three years later, he was general-in-chief of U.S. forces. Four years after that, he was elected president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Also, since the source doesn't exist, they're forced to run around in circles looking for something you made up. I'll pass, thanks, and just chalk it up to you being you.
Ping.
5.56mm
The draft does promote volunteers. If drafted, you have no choice of unit assignments. If a New Yorker volunteered, he could pick a New York Regiment to serve in. The same was true in the Confederate service. Draftees and enlistees in the U.S. Army were assigned to units by the War Department
Love Walter Williams Rip. Loved it when he took over Rush's show. Loved reading his syndicated column. He was brilliant.
For whatever reason, I can't get to your googlegroups link, and your third link is that letter I referred to about Madison 30 years later opposing secession.
Now some things you may or may not know. Madison was on Virginia's ratifying committee and the committee approved the Verbiage on Virginia's ratification statement which said they could take back their powers from the Federal government.
Some time ago, perhaps a year or so, someone acquainted me with a statement Madison said a day or so after Virginia released it's ratification language.
In that statement Madison denied that states had a right to leave.
I cannot put my finger on that statement, but someone showed it to me and I believe it exists.
I did learn a few things about Madison while studying the "natural born citizen" issue.
Madison will say whatever he believes furthers his political goals, and he will sometimes contradict his past position on a topic because he needs to persuade opinion to go the other way.
In the case of William Loughton Smith, Madison said that simply being born in America made him a citizen.
In the case of James McClure, Madison denied that being born here made him a citizen.
Smith was a political ally, and McClure was a very grave political threat.
Aw, and I was so looking forward to the spectacle of you running around in circles. :)
I've dealt with you too long.
So the numbers about "volunteers" and "drafted" don't really paint a clear picture.
I know that if I was going to get drafted, I would try to volunteer and get into whatever MOS or Unit I preferred rather than let someone else pick for me.
I assume draftees tended to be cannon fodder.
And what is so amusing is that you think that I don't have you running around in circles. :)
“Who’s buried in Grants tomb?”
There’s history behind that question and it stems from the fact that there are 2 Grant’s tombs and so he’s buried in one but the other is either empty or somebody else is buried there...
But that’s where the question come from was the fact that they were two Grant tombs.
In both the Union and Confederate Armies, draftees went to infantry regiments.
Oh. I so loved Walter Williams. Thanks for the response.
Do the other states have the right to expel an individual state from the Union against their will?
Grant was not there when the battle started. He was 20 miles upriver. Sherman was the one who ordered no entrenchments and advised Grant there was no evidence of confederates nearby. Maybe you should actually study the battle.
From the below references I used for my essay it seems there should be a mutual agreement. In terms of a general right to secede, the 20th century provides an example of peaceful secession with Czechoslovakia and brutal separation with Yugoslavia. It would be nice to get rid of the urban parts of New Yyork and California.
James Madison, Secession, & State Sovereignty
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.war.civil.usa/p5V_C8Hm8yw
Do States Have a Right of Secession?
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/
James Madison on Secession
https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/
And I would not disagree with that. But the Southern secession was not through mutual agreement. They walked out without any discussions at all.
This is the reason that the KKK instituted riots in Tulsa and Miami in the 19 teens and 20s to burn down black owned businesses and almost exactly a century later BLM did the same thing to burn down black owned businesses in Ferguson, Missouri, Minneapolis and elsewhere.
The major differences is that BLM could claim that they didn't specifically target black owned businesses (a lie) because businesses were a lot more integrated a century later.
So true. Disunion was determined by the Southern states’ violent seizure of federal property independent of any discussions of political proprieties. It would have been interesting to see what happened if Jeff Davis was able to forbit Fort Sumpter from being fired on, but as was quoted about South Carolina “it is too small for a country and too big for an insane asylum”.
Because Lincoln refused to discuss the matter at all. You blame them because *HE* refused to engage in "discussions"? They sent authorized agents to discuss the matter back in January of 1861, but Lincoln refused to meet with them.
It also wasn't federal property after the state seceded. It escheated back to the state.
Also, the violence was started by Lincoln who sent a fleet of warships to Charleston with orders to attack them if they did not cooperate.
It was the arrival of warships that triggered the bombardment of Sumter. There were no plans to attack Sumter until the warships were sent.
If you did not know about the warships, it is because you have been taught history which deliberately omits this bit of information.
You've been taught deliberately biased history.
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.
