Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


States rights and slavery - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2007 10:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
142nd Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"Occam's razor strikes again. Not all arguments need to be convoluted."

OK.  However, one of the first things that was drilled into me during my graduate
studies was:  All data must be recognized and accounted for.  One cannot set
aside data that one does not like, or arbitrarily dismiss it as anomaly.  If data
conflicts with one's theory and cannot be acceptably reconciled, one's theory
must either be expanded to explain the data or dismissed altogether.
So, while one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of
entities required to explain anything, one must recognized all pertinent entities.

(Again, Great thread Y'All!  And, building so fast that I can barely keep up....)

Last edited on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 12:40 am by JoanieReb



 Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2007 11:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
143rd Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

'All data must be recognized and accounted for. One cannot set aside data that one does not like, or arbitrarily dismiss it as an anomaly.'

Unless it's from James McPherson?



 Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2007 11:48 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
144th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  Your analogy of secession to a coup d'etat is not a good one. The southern states were not attempting to overthrow the U.S. Government, or to remove its leaders. They were attempting to form their own government while under a good deal of pressure, and facing the prospect of a war for survival.

  The U.S. Constitution might have been written to give the minority a voice, but thats not the way it was during the Civil War era. Individuals, politicians, and newspaper editors who voiced the slightest opposition to the war were dealt with very severely by the U.S. Government. There were thousands of arrests. It can even be said that the Confederates were generally more tolerant of criticism from politicians and the press. Abraham Lincoln would never have allowed a newspaper like the CHARLESTON MERCURY to continue to publish.

  The U.S. Government meant to destroy the Confederate Government, but the reverse was not the case. The Confederates , knowing that they were outmanned and outgunned, sought to prepare themselves for the onslaught that they knew would come, because the new President of the United States declared that he would never accept secession. For this purpose, they raided places like federal arsenals.

  As I have said previously, that was not the tactic that they should have taken. But it really didn't matter. There would be a war because the southerners were not going to be allowed to leave peacefully. Therefore, there was nothing that they could have done to achieve that aim.

  You compared the slaves in the south to: "kids who were chained up in the back yard." I can say only that the Emancipation Proclamation was a cynical wartime measure done to try to put the war on a higher moral plane for the northern people. It freed no slaves in the north. The last slaves to be released were in the north, rather than in the south. It took the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 to finally bring the institution of slavery to an end. To me, that fact shines a light on the hypocrisy of the war being fought to free the slaves line.

  Mr. Lincoln's object in all of this was to preserve the Union. He would have been quite happy, as he said, to leave the slaves in bondage if he could preserve the Union that way.

  Of course, in war, men fight for their comrades. They don't want to see the sacrifices of their fellows go for naught, so the tendency is to keep fighting until the bitter end. This was true of the southerners, and also of the northerners. Union soldiers wanted an end to the war which had taken the lives of so many of their comrades. The object for most in 1865 was the same as it had been in 1861- to preserve the Union.

  Soldiers, north and south, were pretty much the same. I'm sure that thousands of them on both sides said: "screw the politicians" on a regular basis. The difference to the southern soldier was that defeat would bring the end of the only culture that he knew, and a long if not permanent military occupation. This is what he was hoping to prevent, though I am sure that the handwriting was on the wall for many after Mr. Lincoln was re-elected.

  One area that you and I can agree on is your analogy of the Indian woman. But thats another story.

Last edited on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 11:53 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 12:39 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
145th Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"Unless it's from James McPherson?"

Wowser, Pvt. Clewell, I really put a bug up your, er, nose, didn't I? =+++.

I am neither arbitrarily dismissing, or setting aside, McPherson, I am challenging him as having a notable bias.  And, since you just a bit ago moved that discussion back to the other thread, let's take it there.

All this is distracting from TD's most exceptional posts.  Haven't had a chance to read them all in detail yet, but one, a couple back was, in my (yes, subjective) opinion,  one of the highest quality posts that I have read on any board.  My hat's off to TD there. 

And no, it is not because it backs up my viewpoint or some such thing, it is because I've just learned a great deal of pertinent info by reading it.  My horizons were notably broadened by reading it, and I am now anxious to learn more.

Last edited on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 01:07 am by JoanieReb



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 03:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
146th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD:

Checked the link and noted it was on Lew Rockwell's site. Read it anyway. Was really getting into the discussions taking place during the conference when I realized that there weren't to be any records kept.

From there it deteriorated into typical Rockwell sludge --  no references, lost cause prattle.

Joanie mention the criteria for historical analyses. I see no evidence of that in the essay.

ole



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 03:33 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
147th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole-

  The site was included because it explained Stephens' recollections of what was said in the meeting on February 3, 1865. According to Stephens, it was the Union side that demanded that the meeting be on a verbal basis only, with no records being kept.

  As far as I know, none of the other participants left a record of their recollections of what was said. So, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of what Stephens recalled being said.

  I assure you, Ole, that the link was not included for the value of the : "sludge." :D



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 01:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
148th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


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

  back to top

Lew Rockwell... nuff said; no credibility at all. Stephens credibility can be questioned as he switched his positions more often than Slick Willy, especially if his previous words might be taken in a poor light. That said he was far more honest than anything I've ever seen on Lew Rockwell site. In no way would I be suprised to find creative editing done to the piece. The site isn't sludge, but excrement.

When klan sites, white supremo & multiple anti US sites eagerly link to said site there is a reason for it. It stretches the credibility of anyone who links to the Rockwell site.

The divorce anology was put forward to show how ridiculous such an anology is and how it can be twisted however one wants. I think you got the point.

Declaring War on a govt... what exactly is such a purpose but to damage it all one can? The CS had no intent to leave peacefully that is painfully obvious from firing on US flagged ships, seizing anything they could, calling up 100,000 troops (to pick cotton?), falsley imprisoning it's citizens and soldiers, and finally firing upon it's troops.

THe CS had no intentionof honoring the Constitution or the laws of the land. We will never know if Secession was a real right, they feared what the courts would find so they didn't use them. They feared the ballot &the courts so they used the gun. What they didn't count on was the US being willing to shoot back.

The Lost Cause was not created to benefit the common soldier of the CS it was created to harm what it's creators hated & despised. It was anti US then, it's anti US now. No different than the modern anti war/anti US movement just more articulate, even less above board and far, far more effective.

I respect the men who were on the sharp end, men who sacrificed their health, wealth and very lives; not the gutless wonders who sent them there. I apologize if I see very little to respect in men like Cobb, Yancy, Rhett or even the annointed one of Davis. They were conninving politicians and nothing more it would be better if history forgot them... in a sense it has.



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 01:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
149th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BAMA no argument here. I agree with your statement, go back and re-read my posts.



Bama46 wrote: 39th..
I will agree with the notion that slavery was an underlying cause, maybe even the primary cause, but I will NOT agree that slavery was the ONLY cause. Nor will I agree that all southernors fought to perpetuate slavery. They fought for a myriad of reasons, and once again slavery was only one of them.



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 04:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
150th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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 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.

  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.

  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."



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 10:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
151st Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


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

  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."



 Posted: Tue Dec 18th, 2007 11:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
152nd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


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

  back to top

39th Miss. Walker wrote: Maam, I missed this.  I'm not sure how much was meant for me but I'll do my best to answer some of it.I think it is also a misnomer to give the western troops the credit for warring against slavery. The vast majority of the western men despised the negro. Many times the men refused to fight with them and in many cases the officers relegated them to only labor duty, such as Sherman's Pioneer Corp. Sherman even went so far as to seen his Colored Troops on a feint towards Charleston and to have them occupy Charleston to keep them away from his main army. Hell there were even race "riots" between Colored Troops and the white soldiers in places like Beaufort, SC.  Actually I haven't.   I think you've got me confused w/ another poster.  That said The average western soldier in the US Army didn't really give a tinkers damn about slavery one way or the other.  Then he ended up down in the deep south and saw the effects of slavery first hand.  I literally cannot tell you how often I have read mens disgust at the practice of slavery; seeing children who were obviously a white mans in slavery, slaves as white as they and the mistreatment.  "I wouldn't treat a rabid dog this way!"  All too many men of the US Army found themselves turned into abolitionists by what they saw in the South; they saw slavery first hand and made a decision that it was an evil that needed to be stomped out.  They blamed slavery for the war, they blamed it for the death of their friends, for taking away 3-4 years of their lives and they were not inclined to be forgiving toward an institution they blamed for so much.  As a note there were no black men "officialy" w/in Shermans Pioneer units; but they were there.  THey were also there in the Grand Review, and Sherman did not protest; he felt they had earned a place in the ranks of his Army.  Sherman was a racist, probably 2/3 of the white males in the country were racist.  He was also a sexist, homophobe and probably a bunch of other things that end w/ "ist" but he understood that it was slavery that had brought about the war and so did Mosby, Longstreet, Johnson and a whole host of CS soldiers who saw the 20 slave exemption rule for what it was.  Thousands of CS soldiers reacted accordingly and voted w/ their feet.

While the South did a great job with the Lost Cause, don't think for one moment that the Northern writing of the war was any less propagandistic.  I wouldn't disagree w/ that; but I do believce the Lost Cause should have been crushed at its roots.

It still remains that the root cause was slavery, that was number one. But as I posted earlier it was not necessarily the reason the common solder fought, on either side.  I would agree wholeheartedly w/ that. 

"There were plenty of men willing to give up democracy for slavery, not as many willing to give up slavery for democracy..."

I don't buy it. It was not an either or. There was no talk of democracy in any quarter. Nice catch phrase but irrelevant.  It makes sense to me, an over simplification perhaps but one that rings very true to my ears.  I don't believe the slaveocracy was overly interested in the opinion of non slave owners... unless of course they agreed w/ them.

In the South slavery was an economic issue. The South had more property value in slaves than it did in all of it's land and industries combined. The very essence of it's existence was being threatened.   I could not agree more, it was money, lots and lots of money in slaves.  Something like 4 million slaves at an average value of say $700 makes the property value of slaves alone about... lets see carry the... good god thats a lot of zeroes $2,800,000,000.  That kind of money in the hands of what percentage of the population?  Is it any wonder they could dominate southern politics the way they did?

The State of South Carolina seceded from the Union on it's own. Other states followed suit. Much of the upper South did not secede until Lincoln called for the raising of the troops to invade the South, to put down the rebellion. It was the threat of invasion that caused them to join the Confederacy.  I would disagree w/ this... those that refused to secede faced invasion from only one direction; ask Kentucky from which direction that invasion came.

To all, as a note, I use red highlights as an easy cop out for me.  I don't see green or blue worth a hoot... they look gray to me, different shades of gray but gray.  When people use greens and blues I typically cut and paste it to Word, and do some creative magic to try and follow the conversation.  My red font is not intended as a shout or flame.  I hope none take it that way; if so my apologies.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 12:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
153rd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  Since you're clarifying some of your positions, I'll attempt to clarify mine.

  It seems that we both have some respect for Alexander Stephens. To me, he was a plucky little guy who spoke his mind. It seems unlikely that he would have turned out to have been a good friend of Congressman Abraham Lincoln. The two must have made a strange sight when standing and talking to each other.

  If you don't like the divorce analogy- how about one of two men in the business partnership? Barring some contractual agreement to the contrary, one or the other should be able to dissolve the partnership.

  You make much of the Confederate Government calling for volunteers. But they rightly saw that they would soon be threatened with invasion. Perhaps they thought that they could deter it. But, if that was their hope, it sooned proved incorrect. When Lincoln called for volunteers, it was not to defend Philadelphia. The intention was to invade the south.

  We disagree strongly on your contention that the Confederates committed treason. To me, treason is acting to overthrow one's own government or to harm its sovereign. It is a violation of allegiance to one's own state. I do not see how secession qualifies in any way. There was no attempt to destroy the U.S. Government, only to leave it. The southerners considered that they no longer were part of the United States. How can one commit treason against someone else's government?

  It is quite underatandable that many Union troops viewed the Confederates as traitors. Its always easier to fight an enemy who you can demonize. Some took the view that it was a few scoundrels who somehow "tricked" the southern people into a sinister rebellion. If you also believe somehow that secession is illegal- its easier to call those attempting to leave traitors.

  I certainly don't see Jefferson Davis as a saint. He was a human being and had many faults. However, I do see him as a decent man trying to do his best in a task that he cannot accomplish. Thus, to me, he is a tragic figure, and the tendency to blame him for the defeat of the Confederacy is unfair, though he did some things not helpful to the cause.

  At one point, I am sure that Davis had thoughts of becoming President of the United States. But I remain convinced that he did not want to be president of the CSA. As I said previously, what he wanted was a military command.

  Where we seem in total agreement is in our apparent mutual disdain for politicians in general. You might appreciate this poem.

 

  Just A Common Soldier

  I am not a follower of this LR character who you so despise. In fact, I never heard of him before coming to this board. In the case of my last link posted, I was looking for information on the Hampton Roads Conference. My judgment was of the piece itself. I believe that it was historically accurate, and it didn't matter to me what websites it might have been posted on. It could have been on the: "Farbs Strike Back" website for all I cared, as long as it was a serious look at historical facts and, of course, supported my position. ;)



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 02:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
154th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

My judgment was of the piece itself. I believe that it was historically accurate, and it didn't matter to me what websites it might have been posted on.
The problem is that it was historically inaccurate and deceptive as well. Guess I ought to read it again before commenting on it from memory.

ole



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 02:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
155th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


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

  back to top

TD, thank you for the poem, I believe that's the first time I've ever seen the original.

A couple years ao... 2005 I think I was introduced to Mr Stephens, read a good bit about the man and came to like him to a degree. In there back of my mind I think I recall reading in that period that Stephens and Lincoln seemed to enjoy each others company. I don't think I've got any of my old notes on the subject but across all of it I was pretty convinced that had Stephens been made President instead of Davis there would have been no war and probably there would be a CS today... w/ slavery still quite intact.

Yes, w/ a business partnership where there is the wish to dissolve it there are ways to do so... and they do not involve seizing property at gunpoint or shooting at the partner. Sometimes those splits take years. And they are also not always amicable, though sometimes they are.

Could the CS have seperated from the US peacefully? I don't thinkso because I think the way they did it invited a war. It was inevitable, it was just waiting for that match to blow open the powder keg.

Look at how many US troops were in Washigton DC when Ft Sumter blew up... there are more marines on board your average Aircraft Carrier (that might be an exaggeration but not by much) A 15,000 man standing army w/ about a third in CS POW camps... the CS had made a big deal about those 100,000 men. I know as an average Sgt or Corporal in the streets of DC I might have been wondering what me and my 12 drinking buddies were going to do when those Rebs came walking down the street.

I only believe some of the Confederates commited treason and then in degrees. THe average soldier in the ranks, no. The man who sent them... I would have gladly have provided the rope for them. Then again I firmly believe a few politicians currently in office should be tried for treason or at the very least sedition. My wife and sister have accused me of being somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

If I had my druthers I think I might call Davis one of the worst villans of US history. From the very start of his political career I believe he had his eye on the White House. He was perfectly willing to play whichever side would gain him the most advantage. I do think he did more damage to the hopes of the CS than anything or anyone else from how he handled Ft Sumter, allowing the CS invasion of "neutral" Kentucky, his policy of guns and ammunition w/ food & clothing catch as catch can and keeping Bragg in command as long as he did. He favored his cronies, at any cost. The leader of a nation sets the tone of a nation, Davis set the tone for failure and his bitterness after the war set the tone for the Lost Cause. He was an outstanding politician w/ all the foibles that entails; I'm not certain he would have been a succesful military commander. Though to be honest I'd pay real money to know what he thought of the young Rhett's manuevering in SC. I don't think he would have approved of securing a command by challenging and then killing your CO in a duel.

Like Wheeler the more I read and learn about Davis the less I like him. Davis was no Stephens, Hampton or Lee not by a very long shot.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 02:26 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
156th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


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

  back to top

TD in thanks for Just A Common Soldier I'll pass on Father O'Brien's take on the subject.

It's in caps as that is how I pulled it down. Perhaps it should be shouted so all will hear it...

WHAT IS A VETERAN?

SOME VETERANS BEAR VISIBLE SIGNS OF THEIR SERVICE: A MISSING LIMB, A JAGGED SCAR, A CERTAIN LOOK IN THE EYE. OTHERS MAY CARRY THE EVIDENCE INSIDE THEM: A PIN HOLDING A BONE TOGETHER, A PIECE OF SHRAPNEL IN THE LEG OR PERHAPS ANOTHER SORT OF INNER STEEL: THE SOUL'S ALLOY FORGED IN THE REFINERY OF ADVERSITY. EXCEPT IN PARADES, HOWEVER, THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE KEPT AMERICA SAFE WEAR NO BADGE OR EMBLEM. YOU CAN'T TELL A VET JUST BY LOOKING...... WHAT IS A VET? HE IS THE COP ON THE BEAT WHO SPENT SIX MONTHS IN SAUDI ARABIA SWEATING TWO GALLONS A DAY MAKING SURE THE ARMORED
PERSONNEL CARRIERS DIDN'T RUN OUT OF FUEL. HE IS THE BAR ROOM LOUDMOUTH, DUMBER THAN FIVE WOODEN PLANKS, WHOSE OVERGROWN FRAT-BOY BEHAVIOR IS OUTWEIGHED A HUNDRED TIMES IN THE COSMIC SCALES BY FOUR HOURS OF EXQUISITE BRAVERY NEAR THE 38TH PARALLEL. SHE OR HE - IS THE NURSE WHO FOUGHT AGAINST FUTILITY AND WENT TO SLEEP SOBBING EVERY NIGHT FOR TWO SOLID YEARS IN DA NANG. HE IS THE POW WHO WENT AWAY ONE PERSON AND CAME BACK ANOTHER OR DIDN'T COME BACK AT ALL. HE IS THE QUANTICO DRILL INSTRUCTOR WHO HAS NEVER SEEN COMBAT - BUT HAS SAVED COUNTLESS LIVES BY TURNING SLOUCHY, NO-ACCOUNT REDNECKS AND GANG MEMBERS INTO MARINES, AND TEACHING THEM TO WATCH EACH OTHER'S BACKS. HE IS THE PARADE-RIDING LEGIONNAIRE WHO PINS ON HIS RIBBONS AND MEDALS WITH A PROSTHETIC HAND. HE IS THE CAREER QUARTERMASTER WHO WATCHES THE RIBBONS AND MEDALS PASS HIM BY. HE IS THE THREE ANONYMOUS HEROES IN THE TOMB OF THE UNKNOWNS, WHOSE PRESENCE AT THE ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY MUST FOREVER PRESERVE THE MEMORY OF ALL THE ANONYMOUS HEROES WHOSE VALOR DIES UNRECOGNIZED WITH THEM ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR IN THE OCEAN'S SUNLESS DEEP. HE IS THE OLD GUY BAGGING GROCERIES AT THE SUPERMARKET - PALSIED NOW AND AGGRAVATINGLY SLOW - WHO HELPED LIBERATE A NAZI DEATH AMP AND WHO WISHES ALL DAY LONG THAT HIS WIFE WERE STILL ALIVE TO HOLD HIM WHEN THE NIGHTMARES COME. HE IS AN ORDINARY AND YET AN EXTRAORDINARY HUMAN BEING A PERSON WHO OFFERED SOME OF HIS LIFE'S MOST VITAL YEARS IN THE SERVICE OF HIS COUNTRY, AND WHO SACRIFICED HIS AMBITIONS SO OTHERS WOULD NOT HAVE TO SACRIFICE THEIRS. HE IS A SOLDIER AND A SAVIOR AND A SWORD AGAINST THE DARKNESS, AND HE IS NOTHING LESS THAN THE FINEST, GREATEST TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE FINEST, GREATEST NATION EVER KNOWN. SO REMEMBER, EACH TIME YOU SEE SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED OUR COUNTRY, JUST LEAN OVER AND SAY, "THANK YOU". THAT'S ALL MOST PEOPLE NEED, AND IN MOST CASES IT WILL MEAN MORE THAN ANY MEDALS THEY COULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED OR WERE AWARDED. TWO LITTLE WORDS THAT MEAN A LOT, "THANK YOU". REMEMBER VETERANS DAY, NOVEMBER 11TH: "IT IS THE SOLDIER, NOT THE REPORTER, WHO HAS GIVEN US FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. IT IS THE SOLDIER,
NOT THE POET, WHO HAS GIVEN US FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IT IS THE SOLDIER, NOT THE CAMPUS ORGANIZER, WHO HAS GIVEN US THE FREEDOM TO DEMONSTRATE. IT IS THE SOLDIER, WHO SALUTES THE FLAG, WHO SERVES BENEATH THE FLAG, AND WHOSE COFFIN IS DRAPED BY THE FLAG, WHO ALLOWS THE PROTESTER TO BURN THE FLAG."

-- FATHER DENIS EDWARD O'BRIEN, USMC



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 02:39 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
157th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  We seem to be in agreement that war was inevitable, perhaps for different reasons. But, for whatever reason, that seems to have been the reality.

  We differ in our views of Davis. As a military officer, he won praise in the Mexican War for his actions at Buena Vista and Monterrey. He even won over his former father-in-law, Zachary Taylor, who was not one of his admirers many years before that.

  I believe that Davis could have been successful as a division commander. Above that, I'm not so sure. One of his greatest faults was excessive loyalty to his friends, which made him hesitate to remove commanders who should have been sacked.

  Even  with all his faults, I'm not sure that any other individual could have been successful as CSA president. If Mr. Lincoln had been less adept as a politician, the south might have achievied its independence. But, as the situation was, all the southerners could do is go on and hope that the will of the northerners could be gradually worn down. After the Election of 1864, it was clear that that was not to be.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 02:54 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
158th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  I think that the exchange above shows that we agree on who in our society has given us the freedoms we enjoy. We might even agree on which politicians we hold in the lowest regard.  #%$#

  I can only respond with one of my favorite quotations, which you have probably seen before:

  "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight , nothing which is more important than his personal safety is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

                                                             -John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

  True then. True now.



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 05:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
159th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan:

Thanks for posting Father O'Brien's statement in its entirety. I don't believe I ever read the whole thing. It is moving and pointed. A thorougly thoughty statement.

ole



 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 01:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
160th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan, you have posted this a couple of times, can you elaborate.
"A 15,000 man standing army w/ about a third in CS POW camps..."

Exactly when, where, what sources? Up to a few days before the firing on Sumter Northern agents and officers were walking the streets of Charleston.

You can also give Buchannan credit for his hands off "I don't know what to do" attitude. He was worse than worthless.

You also need to put some of the blame on the firing on Sumter on the Union attempting to re-enforce and re-supply Sumter, twice.



 Current time is 08:54 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3014 seconds (11% database + 89% PHP). 32 queries executed.