Posted on 06/22/2005 9:43:16 PM PDT by quidnunc
Now that it's officially summer, here's my advice to parents who want to continue teaching their kids during the next two months and learn something themselves: visit Civil War battlefields. I probably overdid it with my own children, visiting about 35 in all, but here are my top five:
1. Gettysburg (July 1863)
Much as I'd like to make a surprise choice, there's no avoiding Gettysburg's primacy and sadness, with over 50,000 soldiers becoming casualties over three days.
Driving and walking this Pennsylvania battlefield explains much: the big rocks of Devil's Den were indeed devilish, and the awesome difficulty of "Pickett's Charge" — across a vast expanse, sloping slightly uphill — makes it seem that Robert E. Lee's hope that day was for God to intervene. (That's what Michael Shaara suggested in his fine novel, "The Killer Angels"; it's well worth reading before a Gettysburg visit.)
2. Antietam (September 1862)
The 30-acre Maryland cornfield through which soldiers charged and countercharged is still a cornfield; the farm road worn down by erosion and called Sunken Road until it gained a new name at the battle, Bloody Lane, is also a good place to meditate on 23,000 casualties incurred in one day.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Here we go again.....please take a valium, and spare us the stories of "wicked slave owners".........
It's all a crock anyway, as YOU WELL KNOW.
Isn't that the crux of the debate, though? The CSA was claiming that it was a separate entity. The Union contested that claim.
Since the people of the South had voluntarilly and peacefully established their own institution to govern themselves, there was no rebellion against any authority.
"Peacefully" implies that the CSA had existed before the Civil War and that the Union was attacking a recognized, independent country. Whether the CSA was an actual independent country was the entire point of the Civil War. Other than a few minor principalities in Germany, nobody recognized the CSA as an independent nation. So, it would seem that the final determination is that the CSA was never an independent nation.
"Isn't that the crux of the debate, though? The CSA was claiming that it was a separate entity. The Union contested that claim."
Yes and the Union did that without the benefit of a legal counter claim. The Union then sent troops to dismember the newly formed government.
"Peacefully implies that the CSA had existed before the Civil War"
Peacefully does not imply anything. It is what it means. It is peace. The Confederacy was established in peace.
"that the Union was attacking"
That is right. The Republican government under the flag of the Union was attacking.
The legal counter-claim was that secession from the US is not allowed. Other than military force, how else was the Union supposed to contest the CSA's claim? Take them to court?
Peacefully does not imply anything. It is what it means. It is peace. The Confederacy was established in peace.
The CSA claimed independence without violence, true. But that is simply due to the fact that it took time for both sides to muster their forces. War was inevitable. No government can simply allow a group of rebels to claim independence.
That is right. The Republican government under the flag of the Union was attacking.
Sure. They were fighting to restore the proper authority of the USA over rebellious territories.
He's buried in Coosa, just west of Rome, GA, at the Coosa Methodist Church cemetery.
His brother James (buried beside him) was killed a couple of months earlier in Tennessee. They say that the blow of losing two sons killed my ggg grandfather.
I do not have a beef with the majority of the slavers who probably did not mistreat their slaves and do not believe them to be inherently or overly evil. Nor with Southerners in generaly particularly since I was born and raised there and my family is still there.
I do have a beef with those claiming the Secessionists acted because of some deep belief in a Noble Principle when they acted ONLY because of their fear that Lincoln would do something about their slaves. And I do have a beef with the Slaver Leaders who led their section into a suicidal war which wrecked it and caused the nation to suffer hundreds of thousands of men killed because of their insane attempt to destroy the Union.
No amount of valium whould change that.
Not allowed by the Constitution.
And it says what about secession?
Secession is not legal. The Civil War proved that.
As a Left Coaster, I'd like to take my kids to DC this winter. While there I'd like to visit some battlefields. Probably won't have time to do a big tour, but I figure bopping up to Gettysburg would be worthwhile to see the site of the most important battle of the war. I trip to Baltimore to see Ft. McHenry would cover the War of 1812. What's the best Revolutionary War battlefield near DC to see?
More like, the US President has the duty and the power to quell rebellions within the territory of the USA.
Why would he even bother to start the war?
To preserve the Union and to quell rebellion within the territory of the USA.
Shiloh
my great granddaddy fought at Shiloh
I am thankful that he survived
The Southern leadership was free to pursue secession through legal means, such as the passage of laws in Congress or the filing of lawsuits in Federal courts.
The fact that they resorted to armed insurrection and treason leads to the conclusion that they knew that they were engaging in illegal acts.
"More like, the US President has the duty and the power to quell rebellions within the territory of the USA."
But he has no authority regarding secession.
"preserve the Union"
The Union was preserved except for a few that went out on their own.
"and to quell rebellion within the territory of the USA."
Lincoln used the word rebellion to justify calling out an army to invade the South. There was no rebellion.
In fact, after secession, business continued as usual and it was peaceful.
It was a rebellion, nothing more.
The Union was preserved except for a few that went out on their own.
The Union was preserved in its entirety, thanks to Lincoln.
Lincoln used the word rebellion to justify calling out an army to invade the South. There was no rebellion.
You can deny it all you want, but the south was in open rebellion to the legitimate government of the USA.
In fact, after secession, business continued as usual and it was peaceful.
The South never seceded. It tried, but was ultimately unsuccesful. The CSA was never an independent nation.
"The Southern leadership was free to pursue secession through legal means."
There were no laws regarding secession so there were no legal means.
"such as the passage of laws in Congress"
The United States Congress had already attempted to declare secession illegal but that act failed. So there was no "controlling legal authority".
"or the filing of lawsuits in Federal courts"
Law suits were not needed. The Confederacy sent commissioners to arrange for peaceful relations and to pay the Union states for any property in Confederate hands.
As you know, Lincoln would not even speak to them.
"The fact that they resorted to armed insurrection"
No, they resorted to peaceful negotiations.
"and treason"
That term is conveniently thrown about, but no one was ever convicted, much less charged with treason. So your use of the term in 2005 about something that did not happen in 1865 is useless.
"leads to the conclusion that they knew that they were engaging in illegal acts."
Again, point out the illegalities, please.
I am really pleased and honored to be here in the company of such good people ,as have visited these hallowed places and respect them so deeply still. This is indeed a special community and I thank you all for your care and concern.
I believe our ancestors would be most pleased as well.
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.