Posted on 05/23/2002 8:52:25 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Succinct, but not true. Gettysburg is a prime example. In each and every battle, victory on either side was determined by the better general combined with the state of his troops moral and confidence. Early in the war this fell mostly to the Confederates. Later, as the Union fielded better Generals and the troops gained confidence in them the tide swung.
Only those made "pursuant" (as in "conforming to") to the Constitution. By your continued unqualified definition no federal law could ever be unconstitutional. Article IV, Section 1 requires that the acts of the states be recognized by all parties to the Constitution:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.The Declarations of Secession by the states were constitutional - unless you can cite something within the Constitution that prohibits secession. Which, according to Amendment X, means a posititve enumeration of a power specifically delegating the federal government the ability to prohibit secession, or or a clause that prohibits the states from seceding. Neither exist.
Not all of us. From The Daily Picayune newspaper of Feb 27, 1864:
Omnibusters - The editor of the Richmond Examiner proposed that, since the repeal of the substitute law has forced into the army both fat and lean, the very heavy men, whose size incapacitates them for the infantry and artillery exercises, and whose weight would prove fatal to their horses should they join the cavalry, should raise a company of men weighing 250 pounds and over, to take the field in iron-clad omnibuses, and to be called Omnibusters. He argues that the size alone would have a very demoralizing effect on the enemy...
And part of another piece, in the vernacular (March 27, 1864):
At this juncture, in cums Mrs. Snittle, who kin lift 600 with old Podhammer on the top uv it, and it wuz no time afore she diskivered wat hiz bizniz waz. She turned read in the face. She said:
"Yoor goin to taik my furnytoor?"
"Certingly."
"And we air yoor slaivs?"
"Uv coarse."
"And you ken sell my children?"
"Natterally."
"And you kin maik me yoor conkebine?"
"If you wish."
"You old beast," shreckt the infooriated feemaile chattel, forgetin her normal condichun, "yu sell my babys, yu taik my furytoor; drat yu, I'll give yu sum uv it now." whereupon she hurled a chare, which laid him prostrait on the floor, when she pickt him up and slung him out the dore."
This is a little over my daily limit of jabberwocky, son. I guess I'll have to shun you after all.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion -- though it is incorrect. There were never better generals than Southern generals in the WFSI.
Really? Then why didn't Lee win at Gettysburg? If he had listened to Longstreet, clearly a better general than Lee, whose tactical genius was exceededonly by his strategic stupidity, he would not have fought there. Numbers didn't decide the battle. Lee blew it. He committed bonehead errors born of arrogance and over-confidence - errors that were amplified by several of his "superior" subordinate generals he also believed their own press.
" I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and never found [ Ulysses S.] Grant's superior as a general." - Robert E. Lee.
I know Civil War Mythology is important to many Southerners, but are you going to contradict your greatest hero? I would suggest you read Nolan's Lee Considered. A work that is recommended by the War College.
Only a person of Lee's moral caliber and sense of humility and graciousness would make such a statement. A true hero and a true gentleman, of whom we may never see the likes of again.
So... he was just being polite? A gracious liar? Even I have more regard for the mans honor and integrity than that. Read Nolans book and any other's recommended by the war college. You see... the U.S. Military cannot afford to have officers who believe in fantasy, which is why, when they they do tactical studies, they must rely on fact and not mythology. They do not reccomend that their officers read mythology, becasue that gets people killed.
I have engaged in several military "tactical analysis'" of Civil War battles, Gettysburg being only one. Lee was near to a genius when it came ot on the ground tactics, but his strategic planning and foresight left much to be desired. Not only were Grant and Sherman up to his level tactically (I'll give the edge here to Lee), both were superior to him in terms of strategic thinking. Strategy, not tactics on any particular battlefield, is what won the war for the North. Longstreet knew this too, but was pilloried in the South after the war when he made the mistake of making his criticisms of Lee public (Pickett, who lost his division on Day three refused to blame Lee and turned instead on Longstreet). After the war the South needed its heroes, exalting Lee far beyond his due, and stiffling and destroying his critics that had done near as much. A practice that continues today.
As President Jefferson Davis so plaintively said: "All we want is to be left alone."
I get it now. I'm just an ignorant yank that couldn't possibly understand the beauty of the antebellum southern way of life that was threatened by scurilous yankee insistance on following the legislative proceedures of the same Constituion those Rebel states ratified in the first place and later found to be too onerous. States rights over the democratic process and all that. Please.... the only Principle that mattered, the only right at stake, in spite of all the political rhetoric and attempts to obfuscate the issue (on both sides) was slavery. Pure and simple.
It amazes me when southerners who can see right through, and perfectly dissect, political spin when its on TV in the year 2002, become dumbstruck by the spin of their own Civil War (and long dead) politicians. I find it even more amazing when it comes from southern conservatives (I'm making an assumption about your political leanings here, so forgive me if they are incorrect), who don't seem to understand that they are parroting the same rhetoric of southern democrats who brought us the welfare state and near universal socialism.
While I will never deny any southerner the right to be proud of his state or the accomplishments of its soldiers and generals in the war, this blind devotion to the "rightness" of the Confederate cause and near religous adoration of Leaders like Lee, Davis and others is beyond me.
I have always stated that the Democratic Party was and still is a slave party (and the historical record on that is indisputable on the basis of fact). For any southerner that considers him or herself a conservative or Republican to mouth the lies of that party is a cognitive dissonance of collosal magnitude.
To me it is no different than when todays Muslims say they are against terrorism and suicide bombers, only to say "but" before launching into a rant on Isreal. No difference whatsoever.
Strategy won? With all due respect, if the Confederacy had not had military leaders like Robert E. Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart et al, the war shouldn't have lasted a few months. Robert E. Lee deserves to be exalted.
The Union had vastly superior numbers, almost every warship, munitions factory, the majority of idustrial capacity, medicines, food and other supplies, the federal treasury, a functioning government, and even limited prisoner exchanges/medical resupply to rob the confederacy of soldiers.
The Confederacy was blockaded at the outset to prevent food, medicine and anything from entering. Union ships quickly siezed important ports, or rendered them useless. The Confederacy faced overwhelming numerical odds (4-1), the destruction of food crops, the slaughter of her livestock. Women, children, old men - white and black - were left to defend their homes - and were attacked, raped, killed or simply left to starve. Entire cities were destroyed or reduced to ruins. The Confederates had nothing except honor and courage - the belief that their cause was just and worth dying for.
Instead of a ringing endorsement of the tactical superiority of union military leaders, it is a tribute to the leaders of the Confederate forces. Even with virtually everything against the Confederacy, it still took the union forces more than 4 years to defeat them, and even then it wasn't on the field of battle, but due to starvation and lack of supplies. Yankees are just torqued because they couldn't whip a bunch of farmers in a fair fight, and had to resort to targeting civilians to finally win.
My apologies Ms. Davis, please remember me to your husband ;o)
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.