General Sherman may have had some of the characteristics you declare, but in relation to those you champion, however Sherman did not sell out his own country for a pack of secessionist, pro-slavery 'Confederates' with their invented régime of rebellion, but fought hard to bring about the defeat the instigators of the Civil War.No one sold out their country. The Supreme Court had previously held UNAMIMOUSLY that the President could not simply take matters into his own hands. The Attoney General did extend his opinion on the matter as well:
Opinion of Judge Black, 20 Nov 1860
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:
To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.
To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.
"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.
"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,
"J. S. BLACK." Melvin I Urofsky and Paul Finkelman,
Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, NY, NY: Oxford University Press (2002), p. 398.
What never you have, but nothing should surprise the limitless, disgraceful hate you really do harbour for all those who rightfully support the total eradication of the South's slaveocracy.
Wrong - the only hatred on these threads is that displayed by you. But yet again, you support the 'TOTAL ERADICATION' of Southerners - just as Osama Bin Laden is seething with hatred of innocent Americans, you share that hatred toward innocents. You revel - almost sadomasochistically - in the perverted, wanton death and destruction of all things Southern, glorify the war crimes perpetrated by Sherman [*SPIT*], Sheridan and others.
For those that ordered, condoned or carried out a war against INNOCENT southern civilians I have nothing but contempt, but for the common Union soldier that abided by the rules of war I have nothing but respect.
...yet you never stop supporting the 'Confederates' coupled with their failed goals of further enslavement for profit.
Lincoln supported continued slavery, offering his support for an Amendment making it permanent and irrevocable. If all the Confederacy desired was to continue slavery all the had to do was remain in the union. The seceding states were simply attempting to distance themselves from lunatics like you.
So when you repeatedly & dishonorably tag all those loyal Americans during the Civil War period, who served this country in defeating what was a wicked system of forced slave labour for millions, a staining curse on this land, as you sickeningly attempt to equate with some how being equal with the likes of jihadic terrorist filth such as "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists"
Regarding the first part see above, regarding the second [from Dictionary.com]: terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Unless you can point to a section/clause of the
Constitution that granted the federal government the power to wage war on innocents their actions fit the definition.
You still back the treasonous element which tore this great nation in two so they could continue spreading their empire of slavery.
Wrong. See above. Lincoln would have continued slavery. As far as empire is concerned, the Arizona/New Mexico territories had been open to slave expansion for decades - yet there were a whopping toatal of 21 slaves there. Empire was not their desire, escaping from of union of fanatical lunatics was.
How does it feel being completely devoid of any morals promoting a loathsome scourge which rallied good and honourable men to fight to remove it permanently from America's midst.
Lincoln stated he did not fight to end slavery, Congress did the same. He also stated that never would have been elected, and that the armies would desert if that were the case. Lincoln stated, '[w]e [-------->] didn't [<---------] go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'
Devoid of morals? I detest uncivilized warfare waged against innocents - you admire the terrorists that waged such. And you think I'm devoid of morals? Bwahahahahahahaha!
Here's what someone you support, Alexander Stephens in his "Cornerstone Speech" of March 21st, 1861 had to say. Stephens was the hand picked "Vice-President of the new Confederate States of America."
"The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
What was that? "present revolution"
Wild stuff eh? On one hand Stephens states the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution..what was what? Slavery? But you and the neo-confederate cultists always issues 'other reasons' for the start of the Civil War? Now why would you be contradicting Confederate big shot #2?
Stephens further noted in his speech to fellow 'Confederates', to resounding applause, that his values were in direct contradiction to those of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated [race slavery] as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right....Our new government is founded upon ... "the great truth, that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."
Well, well Slick, how would your Black neighbours like to discover (as if they don't already know) you support ardent, vicious white supremacist views like that?
Mmmmmm, spill the beans Col Sanders, lay your cards on the table, not the neo-confederate con job you are so famous for.
"No one sold out their country."
LOL
If that's not the height of extreme DiLorenzoism. I suppose the Civil War was started by people invading America from Iceland in longboats.
"The Supreme Court had previously held UNAMIMOUSLY that the President could not simply take matters into his own hands. The Attorney General did extend his opinion on the matter as well:"
Naturally you mean the same pro-slavery, pre-1860 Supreme Court which gave America the infamous, later overturned Dred Scott case?
Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. It was the issue that made America ungovernable by the late 1850s. It was the issue that saw open warfare in "Bleeding" Kansas in 1856, in Virginia in 1859. All of American politics in the decade before 1860 was about slavery, in one form or another.
The Southern Plantation rulers would never have attempted carving out their out separate Slave Empire from the United States of America, nor would the pro-slavery traitors have fired on Fort Sumter if they did not believe the North would actually try to eliminate their precious slavery.
You try and spin it as "Empire was not their desire, escaping from of union of fanatical lunatics was."
What a delusional sick comment.
"Devoid of morals? I detest uncivilized warfare waged against innocents - you admire the terrorists that waged such."
You are the one vehemently supporting the 'slavery forever' Confederates, not I.
In the grand scope of monumental issues confronting America in 2005, the 'cause' of the neo-rebel malcontents is Neo-Redneckery, a backward joke from a failed & regrettable portion of America's tragic past.