I think it makes for a great plot line for a movie.
You know his people rented out civilian ships to carry the troops. The people at the Naval yard painted out the names on these ships, and loaded English coal so that the different smoke would make it appear that these ships were not warships.
His men had to pay for these ship rentals at very high rates.
Has anyone asked where the money came from since in several posts earlier it was reported that the Treasury was depleted and departmental expenses could not be paid?
Funny you should mention that. I was thinking along similar lines. The reason the Liberals keep winning the culture wars is because they make movies that present their ridiculous ideas in the most positive light possible, and they deliberately exclude from consideration the real world consequences of those ideas that cause them to be horrible disasters.
I've been thinking that if a movie (I'm thinking animation) was made showing the pieces of the puzzle of which most people are unaware, it would have a far more effective impact than this arguing with words and old records. We could literally show the truth of what happened, and it would make sense and explain a lot of stuff that some people have found puzzling over all these years.
You know his people rented out civilian ships to carry the troops. The people at the Naval yard painted out the names on these ships, and loaded English coal so that the different smoke would make it appear that these ships were not warships.
I did not know that. That is an amazing effort to conceal activities from the public, but it would not fool confederate agents and sympathizers who would likely be closely watching the docks for Union military efforts.
Again, if this was just a re-supply mission, why go to such great trouble to conceal it? One does not do skullduggery sneaking if one is being forthright and honest.
His men had to pay for these ship rentals at very high rates.
Has anyone asked where the money came from since in several posts earlier it was reported that the Treasury was depleted and departmental expenses could not be paid?
I'm thinking that Lincoln was very much like Obama. A race obsessed Liberal from Illinois who had no problems splurging on other people's money, and didn't mind issuing "executive orders" because he found the constitution too constraining for his tastes.
It said something along the lines of:
Few states issued them, most made no particular references to slavery, and so forth.
Does anyone know where that refutation is, or does anyone have the pertinent facts on this point?
I want to see if the word "slavery" is mentioned anywhere in his orders, you know, as in the context "to abolish it."
I'm betting it isn't, but I would like to know for sure.
After all, if you are claiming that a war was fought over slavery, then something about it ought to have been mentioned in the orders, don't you think?