Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Astounding Triumph of Republicanism.
THE NORTH RISING IN INDIGNATION AT THE MENACES OF THE SOUTH
Abraham Lincoln Probably Elected President by a Majority of the Entire Popular Vote
Forty Thousand Majority for the Republican Ticket in New-York
One Hundred Thousand Majority in Pennsylvania
Seventy Thousand Majority in Massachusetts
Corresponding Gains in the Western and North-Western States
Preponderance of John Bell and Conservatism at the South
Results of the Contest upon Congressional and Local Tickets
The canvass for the Presidency of the United States terminated last evening, in all the States of the Union, under the revised regulation of Congress, passed in 1845, and the result, by the vote of New-York, is placed beyond question at once. It elects ABRAHAM LINCOLN of Illinois, President, and HANNIBAL HAMLIN of Maine, Vice-President of the United States, for four years, from the 4th March next, directly by the People.
The election, so far as the City and State of New-York are concerned, will probably stand, hereafter as one of the most remarkable in the political contests of the country; marked, as it is, by far the heaviest popular vote ever cast in the City, and by the sweeping, and almost uniform, Republican majorities in the country.
RELATED HEADLINES
ELECTION DAY IN THE CITY: All Quiet and Orderly At the Polls: Progress of the Voting in the Several Wards: The City After Nightfall: How the News Was Received: Unbounded Enthusiasm of the Republicans and Bell-Everett Headquarters: The Times Office Beseiged: Midnight Display of Wide-Awakes: Bonfires and Illuminations
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Are you calling the men who dropped "fat man" and "little boy" war criminals?
That sounds like McGovern libspeak to me. Do you really believe thats how nuclear deterrence works, or that the theater nuclear weapons that Reagan was able to deploy in Europe were not targeted on major population centers?
My expectation is that this nation's enemies are targeting major population centers with their weapons. That is why I do not get queasy about this country doing the same thing. That is why I support this country's policy of preemtive defense against terrorists, even if it means sometimes killing innocent civilains.
Sounds like your beliefs are something less than that.
In your 791 you wrote: "The total war tactics adopted by the North are (imo) akin to our use of atomic weapons on the Japanese. Would you suggest the US was not correct in delivering to its enemy such devastation as would require its immediate surrender?"
Your comment addressed the use of nuclear weapons on popultaion centers, to which I responded. Your admission was that ANY means are legitimate, which would include the targeting of your family by our enemies. I prefer to chose military targets, and save the lives of non-combatants.
I suggested a parallel between the "total war" concept adopted by the North and our dropping atomic bombs on Japan. While both tactics meant accepting collateral (read civilian) damage in order to hasten the end of war, neither (imo) is equivalent to the "ANY means are legitimate" interpretation you gave my statement. In fact, both instances could have been much worse, as inconvenient as that may be to your argument.
I prefer to choose military targets, and save the lives of non-combatants.
Then I'd really like to know your choice of military targets aimed at ending the war against Japan in 1945. Have at it General.
There were hundreds that were military targets, munitions factories, ports, naval yards, etc - all could have been targeted by conventional weapons. The same military targets could be destroyed - certainly some civilians would be killed in any bombing, but far from the estimated 120,000 of Hiroshima and 75,000 of Nagasaki. I would have bombed with everything I had short of nukes, or used nukes on a naval fleet, but not against civilians.
Again, I acknowledge that the military is prepared for war and is universally recognized as a legitimate target. I still question why you are so eager for your family, your newborn baby, child or grandmother to be considered a lawful target by our enemies.
If you have any evidence that the United States targeted grandmothers and newborns at any time during its existance, then submit it.
Otherwise STFU about it.
"One incident during this period greatly tried American and Papal relations. In 1863, during the thick of the American Civil War, Pius IX sent a letter to the Archbishops of New York and New Orleans suggesting that every effort be made for the cause of peace. Confederate President Jefferson Davis responded to this letter. Pius IX responded in turn to Davis, addressing him as the "Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America." To many in the North, this salutation was seen as a Papal recognition of the Confederate government. Vatican Secretary of State Giacomo Antonelli disputed this, insisting that the Pope in no way intended to make a political statement in his address to Mr. Davis."
Source: King, Rufus. "Letter to William H. Seward, 11 May 1864." United States Ministers to the Papal States, Volume I. Ed. L.F. Stock. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1933. 295.
That was as close as it got for the CSA. Formal diplomatic recognition is a process that often includes the exchange of diplomatic letters of recognition, the exchange of "ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotnetiary," the enactmentment of legislation, the formalization of a treaty, etc. The CSA sent Bishop Lynch to the Vatican and Europe as an "ambassador plenipotentiary" (an ambassador empowered to make treaties). As such, the reception of this type of envoy only indicates a willingness to discuss matters, and in no way conveys recognition. Had formal diplomatic recognition been established and diplomatic relations normalized on the lowest (least formal) level, a "charges d'affaires" would have been appointed. There is zero evidence that any sort of recognition got beyond the discussion stage.
Numerous Native American attacks slaughtered everyone young and old. Ever heard of Wounded Knee? Under a white flag Union troops killed 350+ men, women and children. Custer slaughtered over 150 at Washita River. Over 300 killed at Sand Creek.
The United States being desirous to express its condemnation of, and, as far as may be, repudiate the gross and wanton outrages perpetrated against certain bands of Cheyenne and Arrapahoe Indians, on the twenty-ninth day of November, A.D. 1864, at Sand Creek, in Colorado Territory, while the said Indians were at peace with the United States, and under its flag, whose protection they had by lawful authority been promised and induced to seek, and the Government being desirous to make some suitable reparation for the injuries then done...
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 14 Oct 1865.
Also see the Marias, Bear River, Sand Creek, Washita, Nez Perce, and Wounded Knee massacres. This from Sherman (*spit*)
"As brave men and as the soldiers of a government which has exhausted its peace efforts, wise, in the performance of a most unpleasant duty, accept the war begun by our enemies and hereby resolve to make its end final. If it results in the utter annihilation of these Indians it is but the result of what they have warned again and again, and for which they seem fully prepared. I will say nothing and do nothing to restrain our troops from doing what they deem proper on the spot and will allow not mere vague general charges of cruelty and inhumanity to tie their hands, but will use all the powers confided to me to the end that these Indians, the enemies of our race and of our civilization, shall not again be able to begin and carry on their barbarous warfare on any kind of a pretext that they may choose to allege."And from Sheridan
"In taking the offensive I have to select that season when I can catch the fiends; and if a village is attacked and women and children killed, the responsibility is not with the soldiers, but with the people whose crimes necessitated the attack."
Our readers will be pleased to see, that the Captain-General of Cuba, acting on the authority of the Queen of Spain, has declared that "all vessels, occupied in legitimate commerce, proceeding from the Southern Confederate States of America, shall be entered and cleared under the Confederate States flag, and shall be duly protected by the authorities of the Island; and further, that foreign Consuls be notified that no interference on their part can be tolerated." It will also be gratifying to learn that the Spanish Consul at Charleston, Senor Moncada, will, in a day or two, will clear a vessel from this port as from the Confederate States.This is practical recognition of the independence of the Confederate States. The course of Spain is strictly in accordance with usage, which is to recognize al de facto governments. She is acting towards us by the laws of plain common sense and international law, free from the unfriendly bias and misjudging ignorance which induce other nations standing in awe of Yankee menace, and in deference to insolent braggadocia, to ignore our existence.
While consuls don't have the full diplomatic immunity of ambassadors, they are diplomatic representatives of their repective governments. The US Constitution, for example, requires that consuls from the US be nominated by the President and approved with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Confederate Constitution has similar words. I don't know whether the Spanish consul was simply a holdover from before the war or someone officially recognized by the Confederate President or government. Consular duties are usually described by treaty between the respective governments.
Ever heard of Killbough Texas?
This article was written for a Dallas newspaper by Charles Kilpatrick, Special Writer. There is no date on the yellowed newspaper clipping but it was likely written in 1949 since it states that Mrs. Partlow, born in 1869, was 80 years of age. It gives many details of what happened there after the 1838 Massacre. The photograph and caption at the bottom of this article also appeared with it.
A yellowed manuscript in the possession of 80-year-old Mrs. W. F. Partlow of Houston and Cherokee County tells the story of Texas' last Indian massacre, a bloody raid that claimed 18 adults and children. The pages of foolscap record the story of Mrs. Parlow's grandmother, a hardy pioneer who escaped the ambush of her family and walked 40 miles to safety, bearing in her arms an infant who was later to become Mrs. Partlow's father. (See Uncle Billie's Story in the Historical Story Archives.)
The massacre occurred on October 5, 1838, when a band of renegade Indians swept through the Killough community, a few miles north of what is now Jacksonville, and decimated the families of Isaac Killough, Sr., his four sons, Allen, Samuel, Nathaniel and Isaac. Jr., and two sons-in-law, Owen Williams and George Wood.
It was this piece of treachery that caused the final expulsion of the Cherokees from Texas soil. As word of the massacre spread, public indignation rose and action was demanded to end the threat of Indian reprisals. President Mirabeau B. Lamar ordered the Cherokee leader, Chief Bowles, to leave the state and when he refused, troops were ordered into action.
Less than a year after the massacre, the Cherokees met crushing defeat in an engagement in Van Zandt County and were sent fleeing into Oklahoma. Chief Bowles, a tall, blue-eyed half-breed, fell on the field of battle wearing a silk vest, crested military hat and sword and sash given to him by his friend, Sam Houston.
An Indian uprising (earlier) in 1838 had driven the Killough settlers from their homes but Isaac, Sr., had negotiated a trade which would allow his people to return and harvest their crops. One afternoon's work remained on October 5 when the men left for the fields. In a nearby creek bottom, the men walked into the ambush.
Painted redmen shot down Isaac, Jr., Allen, Samuel and George Wood, then swept uphill into the little settlement. Isaac, Sr., fell in his front yard and Barakias Williams was killed in front of the screaming women. Eight settlers, including seven women and children, were seized by warriors and carried into the forest. They were never seen or heard of again. Two of them were 17-year-old girls who fearfully held hands as they were led away.
Nathaniel Killough and his wife (and 11 mo. old baby girl, Eliza Jane) escaped into a canebrake and Mrs. Samuel Killough, Mrs. Isaac Killough, Sr., Mrs. Isaac Killough, Jr., and the baby William also managed to elude the redskins. Three weary days later the little party staggered into Fort Lacy at Alto, 40 miles south, where they found safety. Mrs. Narcissa Killough, who carried her (12 mo. old) son, William, to safety in spite of her weak 94-pound body, always maintained that Mexicans and at least one white man were members of the raiding party.
After Texas troops drove the Cherokees into Oklahoma, Nathaniel Killough returned to the settlement and rebuilt his home from the charred ruins. By 1846 a townsite (nearby and named Larissa) had been laid out. Settlement of the country then progressed peacefully and quickly.
Years after the tragedy, Narcissa Killough dictated her memoirs to her son. It is this handwritten account that Mrs. Partlow holds today (see photo at top of page).
John R. Baylor, Confederate governor of Arizona, order to Capt. Helms, commander of the Arizona Guards, March 1862
hate drips from almost every one of your posts.
free dixie,sw
hate drips from almost every one of your posts.
free dixie,sw
Hard to say based on this account. It could be a holdover, it could be that the paper exaggerated the position. A lot wold depend on when in 1861 the article appeared in the Charleston paper.
Consular duties are usually described by treaty between the respective governments.
This could indicate that the gentleman in question was a holdover since there were no treaties signed between Spain and the confederate government.
The Confederate Constitution has similar words.
The confederate constitution contains a lot of words, not all of which were followed.
Not THERE'S a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one.
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.