Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
The FDA has approved the sale of Viagra in the South.
Excellent post.
To which I can reply with Joe Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, John Hood, Pierre Beauregard, John Pemberton, and Kirby Smith. The North did not have the monopoly on military idiots.
Ive concluded Longstreet was probably the single best corps commander in either army overall. They all made errors, some larger than others, to be sure.
I would disagree. Longstreet was a little better than average when he was under Lee but was a disaster when on detached duty. The Union had some who were better.
Ah, yes, more glorification of the War of Southern Treason... (ducks out of room). ;-)
John Brown was clearly a psychopathic serial killer, no denying it.
‘John Browns Body’ was controlled by a very sick mind.
And the livestock are panicking.
All true.
There is a qualitative difference between killing enemies in a war and bushwhacking people on your own decision. Atrocities committed in war are no more moral than those done otherwise, either. The states of Kansas and Missouri in the mid-19th c. seemed to be rife with people who were nominally "Christian", yet took glory in atrocities justified by "smiting the wicked" as self-defined.
‘Its not even worth arguing with you anymore. ‘
I concluded as much before making available some different works on the topic based on your blind stance. But I figured ‘what the heck, I’ll do a quick google, and relay it anyway’.
I’m not surprised you are so entrenched in the mantra it was all about slavery, and that the CSA battle flag ‘is racist’. Thats typical of Northern viewpoint which predominates the limited discussions of the topic in what passes for ‘public education’.
No matter what anyone tells you, or makes available to you, you will continue to believe what you’ve been taught by ‘history’.
Some of us understand the what the observation ‘Histories are written by the victors’ actually meant.
It was a warning. You fail to understand it.
No problem. Now you can declare ‘victory’ even though there was no battle fought.
If tariffs were such a big issue then why didn't any of the 1860 Democrat platforms take a position on them? They were all over slavery but silent on the big 'T'. Why?
The roman empire did ok for awhile with slaves.
‘McDowell, Pope, Hooker, BURNSIDE, Sickles, Howard come to mind immediately.’
‘To which I can reply with Joe Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, John Hood, Pierre Beauregard, John Pemberton, and Kirby Smith. The North did not have the monopoly on military idiots. ‘
Hmmmm. Joe Johnston did have the ‘retrograde movement’ down pat at any rate...(chuckle). Bragg, Polk, and Pemberton we agree about.
Beauregard did have his ‘moments’ so I wouldn’t put him in the same catagory you did, although his plan for a grand sweep of the western theater, then into Kentucky, and finally climaxing with a march on Washington was a bit ‘much’.
Hood was a very good division commander, great at getting his troops where they needed to be, but was completely wrong as the replacement for Johnston, no denying it.
‘Ive concluded Longstreet was probably the single best corps commander in either army overall. They all made errors, some larger than others, to be sure.’
‘I would disagree. Longstreet was a little better than average when he was under Lee but was a disaster when on detached duty. The Union had some who were better.’
I think he saved Lee from himself quite a few times. And I completely disagree with the ‘little better than average’ remark. Average compared to who? And considering his logistical support was negligible at best for the entire war except for the three or four weeks leading to Gettysburg. Like you, I didn’t think he did well in an ‘independent command’ but I didn’t address that. I thought he was a great corps commander, the best on either side. Its debatable on that level in my view.
Na. Your too hard on them. It’s just an expression of that beautiful belicose rebelious American free spirit. “State’s Rights” is a nostalgic concept and the thought of a war being waged over that concept is very romantic...if you can purge the whole slavery thing from your memory and make it an unimportant or nonexistent factor.
Now that I know you can cut-n-paste, answer the question, if you please. What “States’ Rights” were being abused enough to cause secession? Your poorly formatted text seems to agree with what most believe: “States Rights” in the context of 1860 political rhetoric begins and ends with slavery, from Calhoun’s fulminations to Taney’s judicial activism.
The Nullification Crisis is a red herring, dealt with decisively by Jackson twenty five years before the CW. The States have NO “right” to nullify tariffs, a clearly defined Federal power.
“.... and proving why the South, its traditional values, military service, good manners, and fierce independence will certainly rise again.”
Let’s hope it spreads to the rest of the country!
‘Now that I know you can cut-n-paste, answer the question, if you please. What States Rights were being abused enough to cause secession? ‘
Please point out where I stated it was ‘enough to cause secession’.
And I won’t even mock you for ‘cutting and pasting’...(chuckle)
Just cause I’m a swell guy, ya know?
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.