So am I. We told you yankees the South would rise again.
Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
In your opinion. I feel the same about HUG, as do many others - including many Southerner's
That is simply not true.
Sherman was the best thing that ever happened to the south. He did more damage to the Southern war effort wit LESS death than would have been possible otherwise. He was the atomic bomb of the war that ended it far sooner and with less loss of life than would have occurred otherwise.
The reality is that the deaths he caused on his march were a pittance next to the bloodletting elsewhere. That was his point. The official records bear this out. isolated incidents to the contrary do not change this. There were very few civilian or military casualties on his march. This is fact. Anecdotal evidence of victims who, understandably, wove great lamentations to his coming do not change the statistical data.
Regarding the Indians, one of the greatest American presidents, and a southern democrat, Jackson, was far worse to Indians.
No other general gained so many strategic victories with so little loss of life. Nor did any other general's actions do more to hasten the end of the war.
Savannah, GA, The Morning News: The news of Gen. Grant’s death will be read with profound sorrow in this country and with deep regret throughout the civilized world. Gen. Grant was a great soldier. . . . His magnanimity at the Appomattox surrender showed that he was as generous as he was brave. --------------------
Mobile, AL, The Register: He is gone. The grave closes over a brave soldier, a man whose impulses, had they been properly directed, (I assume southward), would have made him the foremost man of his times. The South unites with the North in paying tribute to his memory. He saved the Union. For this triumph – and time has shown it to be a triumph for the South as well as the North – he is entitled to and will receive the grateful tribute of the millions who in the course of time will crowd this continent with a hundred Imperial Sates and spread to the world the blessing of republican freedom. --------------------
Richmond VA, The Dispatch: He is not only one of the immortals, but he is one of them by right. He was an Agamemnon – a “King of Men.” --------------------
Charleston SC, The News and Courier: The North had no thought save of the man of Appomattox and the South had no thought save of him who told the worn and ragged Confederate soldiers of Lee’s army that they must take their horses home with them, . . . . .There is peace throughout the land – peace in the North and peace in the South. The country is one again in heart, and thought and hope. . . . In this time of peace there is naught but regard and regret for him for whom strife and disquiet are no more. --------------------
Louisville KY, The Commercial: The greatest soldier since the day of Napoleon is dead. --------------------
New Orleans, The Picayune: Brethren of the North and South let us join mournful hands together around that newly opened grave . . .
New Orleans, The Chronicle: A united country mourns an honored son. His private virtues were equal to his patriotism and military genius. --------------------
Galveston, TX, The Evening Tribune: Those of the gray who had fought against him are earnest in their sorrow that a gallant soldier has gone to his long resting-place.
Yes, I accept the US Constitution, as ratified.
That's why the 1787 proposal to allow Federal suppression of secession was explicitly rejected by Madison during the Constitutional debates. That's why "perpetual union" was dropped from the final version of the Constitution. It was not supposed to be indissoluble.
Too, the Hartford Convention never seriously debated secession.
Interesting that you know that, considering no records were kept of the proceedings, owing to their arguably treasonous nature....or are you saying it wasn't treason?
If you read the declaration issued by the convention you would find that nowhere does it threaten secession.
Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. In fact, were not representatives dispatched to Washington to negotiate such, in addition to the declaration/proposed amendments to the Constitution?
Heck, the Federalists were so out of the mainstream they didn't run a presidential candidate in 1820!
Besides, Aaron Burr was part of a secession attempt nearly a decade before Hartford, as a result of the Louisiana Purchase. It wasn't the South...it was New York and New England.
"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.""The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." --Virginia's ratification conditions for the Constitution, 1788.
--Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
Why not do it Constitutionally?
Oh yeah, cuz he had no quorum... or else no jurisdiction.
Amen brother. keep up the good fight. Truth will always win out against propaganda.
It is only the most un-reconstructed Neoconfederate that spouts this drivel. I have been immersed in the Civil War world for over a decade. The vast majority of honest members of this community with Southern sympathies acknowledge the truth. As I type here on my official us-civilwar.com mouse pad from the 2001 muster at Chickamauga I recall my fellow members of vast knowledge and southern leanings who admitted this.
Freeman recycled many anecdotes about Lee that have no factual basis. He not only built up Lee to idolatrous dimensions, he also cut down other Confederate leaders whenever it would help enhance or defend Lee's reputation. He did estimate that Lee owned about a half-dozen slaves or so in his own right after his mother's death, and this is something we hear little about from neoconfederates.
Freeman faced some criticism and much praise for showing his era a more "human" Lee than his precursors in "Lost Cause" historical writing. But what may have struck Freeman himself and other Southerners in the 1930s as a "real" and "human" picture, has been found by most scholars since his day have mythical and unreliable.
We do learn things in history. False assumptions are discarded as time goes on, though they may come back in another guise. So just as Freeman may have corrected his elders errors and mistakes, we needn't be bound to his.
I see you are throwing an incendiary in order to "bolster your weak arguments".
Nothing of the kind, just a suggestion that if people put up with charges of "Anti-Southern bigotry" whenever they say that you don't like, you should be ready to be called on "Anti-Northern bigotry" the next time you make objectionable statements about the other side.
What a sad lack of understanding of our Constitution, to state something in such a form.
So am I. We told you yankees the South would rise again.
The South lost. A long time ago. My country, the U.S.A., by the grace and hand of God, won.
Sir, you have gravely embarrassed yourself with this post. The people writing these obituaries were the Howell Raineses of their day.
Grant was a confused alcoholic who failed at every endeavor, except killing Confederated soldiers. He roasts on a spit in Hell to this day.
All the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our Forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth.
--Robert E. Lee, 1866
There's quite a contrast between Lee's prewar and postwar views. Lee didn't accept the secessionist's view of the Constitution prior to Sumter or Virginia's secession. Before the first shots were fired Robert E. Lee believed that the view of the early secessionists about the nature of the union was quite different from that of the founders.
A defender of Lee might respond that he believed that Lincoln's actions against the rebellion broke with the earlier understanding of the Constitution. But that didn't apply to actions undertaken before Sumter. Nor was Lee's postwar rationale for rebellion necessarily what motivated him at the time. It was more loyalty to Virginia and its people and institutions than any theory or understanding of the Constitution.
Lee certainly did have some very admirable personal qualities, and could qualify as a great leader of his cause or as a tragic hero. But if you think about someone who served in the US Army for thirty years and swore loyalty to the Constitution, only to declare that his race or ethnicity or religious denomination or region or state or political party was his "real" country and true "loyalty," it may not be so easy to give the full three cheers at full voice for Robert E. Lee.
Letter of General Lee snipped
I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional party of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it a chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.
You're from blue state New Joisey....right? I heard you yankees want to secede and join with Canada. We here in "Jesusland" won't miss ya one bit.
As you have, sir, with yours. lies spread by traitors like Jubal Early, package for easy consumption by the gullible who failed to deal with the truth. Grant was a confused alcoholic who failed at every endeavor, except killing Confederated soldiers. He roasts on a spit in Hell to this day.
More lies (alcoholic) and judgments passed by a fool who has no more intuition as to who is in hell than I, and exposes himself as a fool for presuming to determine the will of the almighty and his judgments.
May I ask you, sir, do you fly the American flag on your porch?
Yes.
May I ask you sir, are you overweight?
Typical response I would expect from an unreconstructed Neoconfederate. Toss away half the country. You claim to be an American yet you would gladly see her disintegrate.
Tell me, and be honest, what did you do to help get President Bush elected? did you do more than I?
New Joisey eh? If I called you a brain-dead redneck with less sense than God gave a horse and less manners than he gave a slug would that be rude and insulting of me?
Jesus-land? So the fact that I live in NJ means I am a heathen?
Remember, oh proud son of Dixie, that the South also got LBJ and Carter (and to a lesser extent Clinton) elected?
May I ask you sir, are you overweight?
No. This is relevant to the discussion how? If I asked you are you inbred, aside from being insulting and unecessary, how would this relate to the discussion?
I thought you blue-zone yankees usually fly Old Glory upside down? At least some of you can get it right.
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.