Posted on 11/19/2001 6:28:43 AM PST by tberry
West Virginia was the last slave state admitted to the Union, annexed in 1863. If the western counties of Virginia stuck with the Confederacy, they'd be forced to free their slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation. If they joined the Union, they could keep them. There's just no argument here. You can't say the Union fought to free the slaves when they were busy admitting a new slave state at the same time, as well as having 1/2 million slaves in Union border states. What hypocrisy!
Each State was to remain a separate entity and retain their individual sovereignty. Virginia, Rhode Island and New York, in their ratification of the Constitution, stated that they reserved the right to secede from the union whenever the National Government used its powers to the oppression and injury of the people. Were they not admitted without question? Was not the declared right of these States the absolute right of all?
'On the twenty-fourth day of May, 1860,' the United States Senate passed a set of resolutions introduced by Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, strongly indorsing the right of secession by a vote of thirty-six to nineteen. Twenty States voted for the resolutions, one State divided its vote, four voted against it, and eight refused to vote. The people still remained citizens of the state in which they lived. The "U.S. citizen" did not exist. Daniel Webster himself said that all states are nations.
In 1806, New England leaders grew white with rage over the idea of admitting Louisiana into the Union. Senator Plumer of New Hampshire said, "The Eastern States must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government of their own and the sooner the better." Senator Pickering of Massachusetts wrote: "I rather anticipate a new Confederacy exempt from the corrupt influence of this aristocratic Democrats of the South. There will be separation, The British provinces of Canada, even with the consent of Great Britain, will become members of the Northern Confederacy."
"[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States]" -- breathes the very essence of States' rights, and the right of secession is distinctly set forth by Rawle's.. When we remember that only seven years had then elapsed since New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and, perhaps, other Northern States asserted this right, and threatened to exercise it or make dishonorable terms of peace with Great Britain unless the war, was stopped, we can understand that Mr. Calhoun was not violating Northern sentiment in introducing Rawle on the Constitution at West Point. It there remained as a text book till 1861, and Mr. Davis and Sidney Johnston, and General Joe Johnston and General Lee, and all the rest of us who retired with Virginia from the Federal Union, were not only obeying the plain instincts of our nature and dictates of duty, but we were obeying the very inculcations we had received in the National School
In 1844 the admission of Texas was a question. Did not the Legislature of Massachusetts pass the following resolution, "That the project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may drive these States into a dissolution of the Union" And just this week, Rep. Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin informs us that
Wisconsin almost seceded over the Dred Scott decision.
Forty-six years after the war Charles Stowe, son of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," addressing a negro university in Nashville, Tenn., said: "It is certain there was a rebellion, but the Northerners were the rebels, not the Southerners."
'Jefferson Davis was never tried. That mountain fact lifts its tall testimony to tell the ages that the North waged an unconstitutional war against the constitutional South'.
After Mr. Lincoln's war, Mr. Jefferson Davis was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the supreme court Mr. Salmon Portland Chase: informed President Andrew Johnson that if Mr. Davis is placed on trial for treason the case will be decided thus. Justice Chase informed the President that the U.S. Government would LOSE the case because nothing in the constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact he wanted one. Reserved powers totally kills the idea of secession is unconstitutional.
Absolutely true. What was it they rebelled against? Do you know?
Wrong. Chief Justice Chase would rule secession illegal in Texas v. White. In this case Chief Justice Chase refused to go along with a trial because the 14th Amendment had been ratified. Section 3 stated that no person who had engaged in the rebellion could hold a position of trust in the government. Having been punished for their actions by the 14th Amendment a trial on treason charges would constitute a violation of the 5th Amendment rights against being tried and punished for the same crime. That is why Davis and the others never stood trial. Had Chase not stood his grounds they would have been tried and they would have been convicted.
However, if he declares secession is illegal, not only the memory of lincoln but everyone in the government (not Congress since they weren't in session!!)that pushed for quelling the rebellion in 1861 is going to be taken out back and hung for starting a war that killed 600,000 people
You seem to mean in regard to Merryman. Chief Justice Taney agreed that the so-called seceded states were in rebellion. Did you know that? The Supreme ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the government was within its rights to put down the rebellion.
Did you know THAT?
"...in 1862, the court heard on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts a collection of suits, collectively called the "Prize Cases" [67 U.S. (2 Black) 635]. The technically turned on whether the US had the right to declare a blacked of the ports of the states in rebellion, and, if so, who had the authority to authorize the blockade, the president or Congress.
President Lincoln issued a declaration of a blockade at the end of April, 1861. Congress retroactively approved of his actions when they met in July. The owners of the ships captured by US Navy ships and claimed as prizes of war, argued that a rebellion was not a war and therefore the ships were not prizes. Having good attorneys :>), they also argued that, even of a rebellion *was* a war, under the US Constitution, only Congress could authorize the blockade, so ships captured before July should be returned.
The US attorney for the District of Massachusetts argued the case for the United States. You have probably read one of his books: _Two Years Before the Mast_. Richard Henry Dana, Jr. got his start as a lawyer because seamen came to him after reading or hearing about that perennial best seller. He had become a Republican and was appointed by President Lincoln as US Attorney.
This was one of the two important lawsuits that Dana was involved in: the other was the treason trial of Jefferson Davis. Dana was appointed as a sort of special prosecutor by Andrew Johnson to try Davis. Because treason is such a hard crime to prove under the Constitution, Dana urged that Davis not be tried.
In the Prize Cases, Dana was spectacularly successful. The Court ruled unanimously that putting down a rebellion was a legitimate function of government (Chief Justice Taney supported this).
To the second question, about who could authorize the resistance to the rebellion, the court split 5-4 in favor of the president. The minority, including Taney, argued unsuccessfully that only Congress had the power.
...the official syllabus to the decision says:
"A state of actual war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party, and this is true of both a civil and a foreign war.
"A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
"The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war..."
Lincoln prepared a warrant for his arrest.
That is false.
Can't you get anything right?
"The story seems to stem from the following paragraph in Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's 1996 book _Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men_ (p. 154):"_Ex parte Merryman_ appears in Civil War histories from many angles.. . But almost never brought up is Lincoln's warrant for the arrest ofChief Justice Taney. I have seen this mentioned in only two locations: Frederick S. Calhoun's official history, _The Lawmen:United States Marshals and Their Deputies_, rev. edn. (New York:Penguin Books, 1991), pp. 102-04; and Harold M. Hyman,_ A More Perfect Union: The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution_ (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), p. 84. Their sources are two independent manuscript collections, which lends credence to the claim's reliability, although I have personally examined neither collection."
Curious about this claim, I consulted both sources. Hyman states that"in an unpublished memorandum, Francis Lieber noted that Lincoln contemplated Taney's arrest, and issued Ward Hill Lamon, marshal forthe District of Columbia, permission to arrest him"(p. 84). Calhoun goes into a bit more detail, recounting Lamon's exact claims that"after due consideration the administration determined upon the arrestof the Chief Justice" and that "It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hand of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia"(Lamon himself was Marshal of D.C.).
However,Lamon said, Lincoln had instructed his friend to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive furtherorders(p. 103)". These further orders never came, and Lamon(obviously) did not arrest Taney. This is an odd story. Lincoln referred to Lamon as "my particular friend" and clearly valued him as a companion. But there is no record, as far as I can tell, that Lincoln ever consulted Lamon on a decision of high political importance, much less that he entrusted Lamon with such a decision.
Also, it was not clear if these were in fact two independent sources; Lieber could have been merely recounting Lamon's claims about such a warrant, rather than vouching for them independently. Still, Francis Lieber was a highly respected lawyer,the principal compiler of the US military code, and his assertion would carry some weight. The manuscript sources listed are (by Hyman) "Lieber Papers no. 2422"; and (by Calhoun) "'Habeas Corpus', n.d., unpublished draft manuscript. Both are stored at the Huntington Library, in San Marino, California. Although I would have liked to visit the Huntington (I drove past it on a recent trip to California; it is in a beautiful botanical garden), time and budgetary constraints were in the way. So I wrote a letter, reproducing the relevant quotations from all three books anda sking if I might be able to hire someone there to look into the manuscript sources a bit. I received a very interesting reply from John Rhodehamel, Norris Foundation Curator of American Historical Manuscripts. He had checked the records, and reported that there are not two sources, only one: Lamon. Hyman's reference to the Lieber papers was in error,apparently caused by a confusion of source numbers: Rhodehamel states that "the corresponding document in the Lieber coll., (LI 2422), isnot relevant, nor does the Lieber coll. subject index for "Taney" yield anything related to Lamon's story."
However, the manuscript"Habeas Corpus", referred to by Calhoun, is LN 2422. Therefore, Rhodehamel concludes: "I think it's clear that Hyman was really citing LN 2422 when he credited 'Lieber papers no. 2422'". This leaves the whole matter resting on Lamon's manuscript. I ordered a photocopy of it from the Huntington. I have now examined it, and it's even less convincing than I would have thought. The document takes up five handwritten pages; I'd estimate it's about 1800 words long. There is, as Calhoun notes, no date. The latest date in the document is in 1863, but (as pointed outin an accompanying note written by Don Fehrenbacher in 1976), the context indicates the document was composed well after the events referred to. Also, according to Fehrenbacher, the document is _not_in Lamon's handwriting.
This does not mean it is spurious (most authors or researchers in the 19th century had secretaries copying their drafts), but neither does it inspire confidence. "Habeas Corpus" appears (to me) to be the beginning of a projected treatise on the Lincoln administration and the writ of habeas corpus. It begins with a list of the suspensions of the writ, and long quotations from relevant legal documents, especially Taney's opinion in the Merryman case (although Lamon, or perhaps his copyist,persistently spells it "Merriman"). After recounting Merryman's arrest, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and that petition's acceptance by Taney, Lamon gives his version of the Lincolna dministration's reaction (p.3):
"After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrestof the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest." Lamon was given this document (whatever exactly it was) by Lincoln himself, but told to use his own judgement about actually making the arrest, unless Lincoln gave further instructions. Lamon goes on: "This writ was never executed, and the Marshal never regretted the discretionary power delegated to him in the exercise of this official duty." Lamon says no more about the supposed arrest order. The "Habeas Corpus" document continues with more quotations from legal opinions and military orders, as well as from Democratic party resolutions opposing the Lincoln administration's policies. Then it ends suddenly,with no conclusion. There is nothing about what ended up happening to the original writ, warrant, or order.After reading the full text, Lamon's story seems even odder than before. A Federal law enforcement officer, handed a legal document authorizingthe arrest of the Chief Justice, would be unlikely to refer to it as vaguely and variously as Lamon does. The issuance of such an arrest order would clearly be of major historic importance, and would tend to make relevant details stick in the mind. Details like whether it was a warrant, a writ, or an order; by whom and when it was issued; and who was present when the document was handed over. Lamon quotes multiple paragraphs from Taney's _Merryman_ opinion, a public document, but passes over the alleged warrant (or whatever it was), a historic matter of which he has sole knowledge, in only a couple ofsentences. After I informed Jeffrey Rogers Hummel of Rhodehamel's findings,Hummel emailed me stating that "If Ward Hill Lamon is the only source reporting that Lincoln isued an arrest warrant for Taney, then the report is certainly not credible." (He gave me permission to quote him publicly). Seeing the exact wordsof the report makes it even less credible. I apologize for the brevity of my quotations from Lamon; I am seeking permission from the Huntington library to include some more extensive quotes from Lamon's manuscript, but I have not yet received it. I am still researching a couple of aspects of this: I am looking for a sample of Lamon's handwriting so I can confirm "Habeas Corpus" was not hand written by him, and I am looking for more biographical material on Lamon. Also, if anyone else has come across the "Lincoln tried to arrest Taney" story in credible or quasi-credible publications or online sources, I would be interested in hearing about it."
--From the ACW newsgroup.
There is no credible evidence that Lincoln tried to have Taney arrested.
What else ya got?
Walt
It is my hope that someday, in the not too distant future, a true account of the war crimes of Lincoln will be discussed, debated and even acknowledged.
May I nominate Pat Buchanan to lead the project? He would fit perfectly well. Yeeeh, wasn't it Lincoln who started this rampant immigration? Abe was also the first president who sold out to Jewish lobby and made our foreign policy depend on Israel. You want proof? Abraham --- isn't it a Jewish name? Yep, I am convinced Pat would be graet for the job. Just read his latest two columns.
False.
"On 17 Apr 1861, the Va Secession Convention passed an ordinance of secession (to be ratified by the people). A mass meeting was held in Clarksburg and called for a Convention of western/unionist counties to meet in Wheeling. The 1st Wheeling Convention met 13 May 1861 with 425 delegates from 25 counties, it decided to adjourn until after the vote on the secession ordinance. The ordinance of secession was ratified by popular vote on 23 May 1861 at which time new legislators were also elected.
The 2nd Wheeling convention met 11 June 1861 and included the western counties' members-elect to the VA legis. On 19 June, the convention passed an ordinance "reorganizing" the state government (creating a "loyal" one), and on 20 June, Francis Pierpont was chosen governor. On 1 July 1861, the members of the legislature elected on 23 May and some holdovers from the old legislature met, finished the organization of the Reorganized state govt., and elected 2 U.S. Senators-- this government was recognized as legitimate by the U.S.
On 6 Aug, the Wheeling convention reconvened, and on 20 Aug 1861 passed an ordinance to divide the state. The division ordinance was ratified by the people on 24 Oct. From 26 Nov 1861 to 18 Feb 1862, the convention wrote a constitution for the proposed new state which was approved by the voters on 11 Apr 1862. Lincoln signed the enabling act on 31 Dec 1862 which admitted W.VA on the condition that its constitution include a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery.
The Convention reconvened yet again, and on 12 Feb 1863 amended the state constitution to abolish slavery. This amendment was approved by the voters on 26 Mar 1863. Lincoln proclaimed (on 20 Apr 1863) that W.Va would officially be admitted in 60 days. During the interval, W VA elected new officers-- A.I. Boreman was elected 1st governor, and VA unionist government under Gov. Pierpont was moved to Alexandria. On 20 June 1863, West Virginia was officially admitted to the Union.
In 1866, Virginia repealed the act approving the division, and brought suit in the U.S. Sup. Crt. to have the division overturned. In particular, it wanted Berkeley and Jefferson Cos. returned. On 10 Mar 1866, Congress passed a joint resolution approving the previous transfer of the counties to W.Va. In 1871 the Supreme Court decided in favor of W.Va., thus settling the matter of division.
Source: Virginia and West Virginia articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th ed."
Can't you get ANYTHING right?
Walt
Once again you fall back on the sothron paranoid tendency of supporting those decisions you agree with while finding ulterior motives for those you don't.
But war was a different case. The POTUS could stand in the oval office and scream for war until he was blue in the face, but THAT requires direct assistance by other parties($2,000,000 from the Treasury of which Chase was over for supplying the 'volunteers'). You claim secession was legal, there were going to be some questions that you couldn't exactly answer without incriminating yourself
Chief Justice Chase, if you knew secession was legal, as you have just judged in this case, why then, sir, did you approve a $2,000,000 transfer from the US Treasury, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, as described in the very Constitution you say you were defending to suppress secession from the Union?
See, the problem is that if he approves of secession then he is seen as an active member of suppressing the Constitution. If he denies secession as a right then he can lay everything else lincoln signed at lincoln's feet, which is exactly what he did. By doing so, he walks a thin line. Secession is not legal(because he would be rode out of town on a rail if he said otherwise) BUT almost everything lincoln did was illegal(the man's dead and can't defend himself)
Forget what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 regarding nullification of unconstitutional legislation. And forget Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, James Hillhouse, Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, and forget the "Hartford Secession Convention" of 1814. Forget Rawle and his views that were taught at West Point to the military - try this:
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."No honorable person would?
President Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801
Well, Madison wrote:
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice."
I don't know why you keep bringing up James Madison.
You can't drag him in to defend the slavers.
And Thomas Jefferson:
"It has been so often said as to be generally believed that Congress has no power ... to enforce anything; for example, contributions of money. It was not necessary to give them that power expressly; they have it by law of nature. When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it."
Thomas Jefferson 1787
"We are all Republicans--we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson March 4, 1801
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted, and to the objects which it was expressly formed to attain."
There is no support for unilateral state secession in the record. It was constructed out of whole cloth years after the framing of the Constitution. It is perpetrated today by people who, at best are misguided, and at worse, traitors seeking to undermine the government.
Walt
Well, how important can they be, since you can't quote any of them.
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance."
George Washington, 1787.
Wow. How do you figure that Washington's image came to appear on the Great Seal of the CSA? Seems a real mystery to me. What do you think?
"So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the states, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the west, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland states agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one state, and onerous duties in another. No one believes that any right exists in a single state to involve the other in these and countless other evils, contrary to the engagements solemnly made.
Every one must see that the other states, in self-defence, must oppose it at all hazards."
Andrew Jackson
"In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution, legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested...We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, wil be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation."
Justice James Wilson, 1793
"It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country.; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform."
Chief Justice John Jay, 1793
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
Chief Justice John Marshall
"In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union...In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. It would be difficult to maintain this position...."
Chief Justice John Marshall
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single natiion, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. "The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empiure--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
It is simply a fraud to suggest that unilateral state secession was allowed for under our system of government.
"What was to be done in the event of controversies, which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State governments? That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious, and as essential as the task itself was difficult and delicate…The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on is manifestly the Supreme Court of the United States, clothed as it is with a jurisdiction “in controversies to which the United States shall be a party,” the court itself being so constituted as to render it independent and impartial in its decisions"
James Madison
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words."
James Madison
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
James Madison
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences."
Abraham Lincoln, 7/4/61
The concept of legal unilateral secession under our system is absurd. It doesn't exist.
Now you can go on for months or years spouting this nonsense--it's a free country, guaranteed by the blood of Union soldiers.
But the record will always make you look a fool.
Walt
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.