View single post by Johan Steele
 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 11:46 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352

Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Johan-

  You can question Stephens' credibility regarding what he said about the Hampton Roads Conference if you wish to. But he was there and you were not. Until you can find some information to dispute what he said about it, then I will find him a more credible source than you on the subject.  I actually like Stephens, he spoke what he thought and wasn't always politic about it.  That said though he was another slick willie in his habit of saying what he thought people wanted to hear or what he thought would paint him in the best light.  He was a politician -shrug- w/ all the credibility that entails.

  You are certainly riled up about the divorce analogy. But the states that seceded wanted out of their previous connection to the United States, and declared their right to remove themselves from it. We can argue the legality of that if you wish. But they saw no reason to consult any court, only the Constitution as it was written.  Not really riled up, I've just seen it used so often it grows tiresome.  As I said the anology can be used however you see fit; if some wish to insist on referrring to the CS as a defenseless woman who couldn't even win an argument in her own house so be it.

  You keep harping on the Confederacy: "declaring war on a government." But war was not their intention. They weren't going to go and attack Boston Harbor. They even sent peace ambassadors to Washington. If they had just demanded that federal property be moved or abandoned (with compensation offered), and federal troops leave southern territory, would that have made any difference? I think not. It would not have changed the attitude of Abraham Lincoln.  I don't believe Lincoln ordered the first shot fired.  I think Davis would willingly & eagerly have burned Boston to the ground if he thought it would aid his cause and given half a chance; after all the CS govt did make attempts to burn NYC to the ground, they just chose incompetant arsonists.  War was an intention of the CS govt, 100,000 men to picjk cotton I suppose.  The compensation offered was a joke.  THe CS needed a war to bring the rest of the South into their fold; by the time of FT Sumter they needed that spark badly as all too many were looking at their actions as some sort of effete joke.

  It was the U.S. Government that made the choice to have a war. It was Mr. Lincoln's choice. States like Virginia were given the choice of supplying troops to suppress their fellow southerners, or leaving the Union. It was understood what their choice would be, which is why the Union troops were ready to invade Virginia a few hours after it voted to secede.  How many Union troops?  15000 Regulars w/ about a third already in CS POW camps.  Posh.

  I don't see the act of secession as failing to: "honor the Constitution." The southerners felt that they were exercising their rights allowed by the Constitution.  I would disagree but that is another thread.  Secession is not listed in the Constitution, Bill or rights or any amendment as a right.  At best it is implied.  THere is no posting @ my local bank saying I can't make withdrawels of other people money courtesy of a 9mm; but if I try it I'm going to jail and rightly.  The fireeaters & members of the CS govt from President down to Senators & reps commited treason in my view; quite a few Union soldiers would agree w/ such a view... they're who put the view in my mind.

  I am not an admirer of the fire-eaters. I do, however, feel a certain amount of sympathy for Jefferson Davis. He had a task put on him that I think would have been impossible for any man. However, to you and others, anyone expressing any sympathy for Davis or any others associated with the Confederate Government is dismissed as a : "Lost Causer," or some such thing.  No, I do not see all who admire Davis as Lost Causers.  I do see those who view him as some sort of annointed saint as shit nuts.  I believe Davis had been aiming at the Presidency for quite a while, he was rather put out that he failed to even be seriously considered for the Democratic nomination in 1860... yet a year later there he was President of the CS.  Nope, no backroom dealing going on there, none at all.  He said he didn't want to be president... did he mean it?  I don't believe so; I believe he had his fingers in a whole lot of cookie jars and did a lot of things engineered to make him into something he wasn't.

  If southern independence had been achieved, these men would now be considered great heroes in the history books. Obviously, it is the side who wins a war who decides who the heroes were, and who the war criminals were. The Civil War was no different.  They might be considered great heroes by CS history books, then again perhaps not as Davis was not exactly universally loved during his stint as President.  He did more to lose the war than any of his armies.

  As for Abraham Lincoln, I consider him to be one of the greatest American presidents. He knew how to exercise power. He knew how to rally the populace. He became the subject of great adulation, and still his. However, that said, I would say as well that you can also view him as a successful example of a : "conniving politician."  I would agree, I've yet to read of a politician worth his weight in used cat litter.  Poli: Latin word for many; Tic: blood sucking insect.  Quite appropriate.  Politicians started the war, MEN finished it.  Usually politicians are just the lesser of two or three lessers.  Regardless, I think Lincoln was a man who took his task seriously and did his best and what he accomplished is rightly legend.  He literally stood heads and shoulders above many of his contempararies.

I'm less than impressed w/ the LR site for a variety of reasons.  One being an almost complete lack of integrity.  Two being the eager linking to it of so many, nothing shy of, despicable organizations and the invitation of same by the site.  They allow it, they encourage it.  Three an apparent very real wish to see this nation overthrown.  Three things that put their credibility in the toilet w/ me.  I have no doubt those who are responsible for the LR would gladly repeal all the Civil Rights Acts, and return us US to the pre EP days.

I appreciate honesty, integrity and decency... that is not something I expect from LR.  Do all their writers exhibit questionable behavior?  Of course not, enough do to sully the whole site though.  There is an old Navy saying?  A cup of oil will contaminate a ships entire water supply.  The LR isn't a cup but a hogshead's worth.  It's my opinion based on my own visits to the site and an old habit of tracking back websites.  To quote a mod, an actual historian,  from another site: "Others mileage may differ."

 Close Window