The foolishness of Civil War reenactors [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The foolishness of Civil War reenactors


Smashy
06-27-2011, 20:24
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/08/civil_war_sesquicentennial

PBCounty
06-27-2011, 20:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2XlSXcwJ3o

G33
06-27-2011, 20:42
What gave it away...the cell phones?
:supergrin:

Kasinefect
06-27-2011, 20:47
I saw this discussed on another forum. It turned into the usual north vs. south argument that we see here on GlockTalk for the most part.

arnold ziffle
06-27-2011, 21:03
http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad190/arnoldziffle/47933d7c.jpg

RWBlue
06-27-2011, 21:05
Why is is foolishness?

History should be remembered. If someone wants to dress up and remember history, so be it.

I remember going to living history museums as a kid. There was one out west that had a mountain man. There was one in the smokies that has pioneers. There was one in a plain state that had different pioneers. I got a kick out of all of them. I probably learned as much from the play actors as the books.

Spike 7.62
06-27-2011, 21:18
I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

bowbender7
06-27-2011, 21:29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2XlSXcwJ3o

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

goldenlight
06-27-2011, 22:25
I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

Outstanding post!

The author of that article is, like most professional journalists, ill informed (at BEST) about what he wrote about.

Ruggles
06-27-2011, 22:30
I agree the article was short sighted and closed minded about the importance of remembering history for history's sake. I am sure he is in the minority with his views.

G26S239
06-27-2011, 22:39
Denigrating others because the author doesn't share their interests is bs. I wonder if Lafantasie would have been happy with opening up with real Cannon fire directed at the Fort at 4:30 am.:upeyes:

Nemesis.
06-27-2011, 23:09
History should be remembered. If someone wants to dress up and remember history, so be it.


Yeah. I just read about a living history wild west re-enactment where one of the participants decided to use live ammo. Shot some tourists.

How's that for realism?

kirgi08
06-27-2011, 23:17
I agree the article was short sighted and closed minded about the importance of remembering history for history's sake. I am sure he is in the minority with his views.

Don't be.'08.

captainstormy
06-28-2011, 00:17
In fact, the "living historians" at Charleston fudged the history more than a little by firing their first shot at the fort at 6:45 in the morning rather than at the very famous historical time of 4:30 a.m.



Then, when the mortar shot was finally fired to begin the reenactment, it barely sailed up 40 yards or so into the sky, although the noise it made was, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, "thunderous." But the newspaper also reported that the pyrotechnics left something to be desired: Rather than the "star shell" of a century and a half ago, the explosion seemed more like a "bottle rocket." The fireworks technician in charge of the mortar shot explained that the burst was "intentionally weak, as a safety precaution to the crowds of people on hand to witness the waterfront ceremony." So much for historical accuracy.


I read the link until I came across the above two quoted areas. Then I laughed at the author and closed the tab.

Does this guy honestly think the re enactments should start at 4:30am just because the battle did? How many people do you think would be there to see it? I doubt many were there at 6:45am either.

Apparently they should also use full power realistic explosions according to the author.

jlh2600
06-28-2011, 01:47
I hate it when people get picky about "historical accuracy" in reinactments!

http://video.soha.vn/watch/2/video/456058

Highspeedlane
06-28-2011, 02:20
Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

USMCSergeant
06-28-2011, 02:51
Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

Good post

G26S239
06-28-2011, 02:53
Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.
:rofl:

12131
06-28-2011, 03:00
http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad190/arnoldziffle/47933d7c.jpg
:rofl:

GLWyandotte
06-28-2011, 06:58
Hey it could be worse- it could be a Renaissance Festival.
Now those people are goofballs.

MadMonkey
06-28-2011, 07:04
and the occasional heart attack among overweight baby boomers who are trying, despite their huge girths and hardened arteries, to portray fit, young soldiers.What a ****** :upeyes:

redbaron007
06-28-2011, 07:10
I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

^^^
+1

Outstanding post!

The author of that article is, like most professional journalists, ill informed (at BEST) about what he wrote about.

^^^
Bingo!!

Even worse are irrelevant writers who reenact journalism and fail miserably at it.

^^^
Great summary!


:wavey:

red

SheepleNoMore
06-28-2011, 07:14
His mommy forgot to tell him not to say anything if he couldn't say something nice.

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 07:17
I think reenactors are harmless and can serve a good purpose. That is, until they start trying to justify slavery by pointing out that some northern states had them, or how well some Blacks were treated in the South.

HexHead
06-28-2011, 07:18
Yeah. I just read about a living history wild west re-enactment where one of the participants decided to use live ammo. Shot some tourists.

How's that for realism?

West World? Did he look like Yul Brenner?

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 07:44
Yeah. I just read about a living history wild west re-enactment where one of the participants decided to use live ammo. Shot some tourists.

How's that for realism?

So you are against reenactments because someone got stupid?

I guess we should take away the guns from everyone who CCWs because there have been more than a few ADs.

And I guess we should stop all gun shows because two idiots were able to fire not one but TWO rounds in a gun show a couple weeks ago.

And I guess we should stop cops from having guns because of the stupidity down in New Orleans.

czsmithGT
06-28-2011, 08:30
I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

I totally agree. I could only get a little over half way through reading the article before I gave up on it. Seems like meeting the author would be a real downer.

czsmithGT
06-28-2011, 08:38
Outstanding post!

The author of that article is, like most professional journalists, ill informed (at BEST) about what he wrote about.

Actually the author isn't a professional journalist, he is a professor of Civil War History at Western Kentucky University.


Since he is nothing more than an ivory tower academic it makes sense that he talks out of his *** and belittles regular folk LOL.

Dalton Wayne
06-28-2011, 08:40
I was a hardcore reenactor, our reenactments were never public events, always done on pvt land no spectators Our uniforms were exact replicas museum grade, not like mainstream reenactors
to get into the reenactment you better be wearing all the correct stuff they will search you down to your underwear which better be hand sewn period correct
it's a whole different animal then the reenactments the public sees

Dalton Wayne
06-28-2011, 08:41
oops double post

pknimrod
06-28-2011, 08:59
Well if everything you guys know about the Civil War you learn from reenactments then you are in serious trouble. Actually I don't know why folks are so concerned about slavery after all, according to Michelle Bachmann:
"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
So obviously there was no slavery then! If you don't agree with history, just rewrite it! Problem solved!
Peter.

Natty
06-28-2011, 09:19
So where do the Yankees reenact Sherman's army going through the South?

Burning down barns, houses, towns, entire cities. Waging war upon civilians and kidnapping women, pillaging, looting, stealing everything they could get their hands on and destroying the rest.

This is what helped win Lincoln's war.

Now days we call it Terrorism.

Carrys
06-28-2011, 09:19
History should be remembered. If someone wants to dress up and remember history, so be it.


I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors?

I am sure he is in the minority with his views.

Denigrating others because the author doesn't share their interests is bs.


I agree with all the above posts.

As I said in an earlier post, it seems there's an awful lot of folks now a days that apparently feel just because they don't like something.....they are sent from on high with a duty to ensure no one else does it either.

How come it, that when one person of a particular slant is against something, it must be banned/done away with........ for the "good of us all"?

raven11
06-28-2011, 09:21
So where do the Yankees reenact Sherman's army going through the South?

Burning down barns, houses, towns, entire cities. Waging war upon civilians and kidnapping women, pillaging, looting, stealing everything they could get their hands on and destroying the rest.


we rig a NASCAR race so Jeff Gordon wins at Talladega

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 10:30
So where do the Yankees reenact Sherman's army going through the South?


This is what helped win Lincoln's war.

Now days we call it Terrorism.

No. Now days we call it total war. You do what you have to do to win.

Dalton Wayne
06-28-2011, 10:37
So where do the Yankees reenact Sherman's army going through the South?

Burning down barns, houses, towns, entire cities. Waging war upon civilians and kidnapping women, pillaging, looting, stealing everything they could get their hands on and destroying the rest.

This is what helped win Lincoln's war.

Now days we call it Terrorism.
Sherman was/still is a hero for bringing that war to a swift end, we need a Sherman in A-stan

G26S239
06-28-2011, 10:42
So where do the Yankees reenact Sherman's army going through the South?

Burning down barns, houses, towns, entire cities. Waging war upon civilians and kidnapping women, pillaging, looting, stealing everything they could get their hands on and destroying the rest.

This is what helped win Lincoln's war.

Now days we call it Terrorism.
Do you ever have a positive thought? Or do you spend every waking hour mourning the demise of the CSA?

jswest86
06-28-2011, 11:03
Sherman was/still is a hero for bringing that war to a swift end, we need a Sherman in A-stan

How could you even apply the concept of Total War in A-stan?

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 11:19
Do you ever have a positive thought? Or do you spend every waking hour mourning the demise of the CSA?


:rofl::cool:

Natty
06-28-2011, 11:43
Do you ever have a positive thought? Or do you spend every waking hour mourning the demise of the CSA?

So are you saying that you support Terrorism?

Natty
06-28-2011, 11:43
Sherman was/still is a hero for bringing that war to a swift end, we need a Sherman in A-stan

So are you saying that you support Terrorism?

Natty
06-28-2011, 11:45
No. Now days we call it total war. You do what you have to do to win.

So are you saying that you support Terrorism?

Smashy
06-28-2011, 11:51
So are you saying that you support Terrorism?



LOL! Wow. That's got to be the biggest stretch I've ever seen on this forum, and there have been some mighty impressive ones. :supergrin:

Natty
06-28-2011, 11:53
Terrorism:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants (civilians)...

That is exactly what Lincoln and his Generals did to the South.

Any questions?

Smashy
06-28-2011, 12:01
Any questions?



Nope. Sounds like a pretty good definition of terrorism to me.

It was just a very humorous stretch in my opinion. :supergrin:

G26S239
06-28-2011, 12:02
So are you saying that you support Terrorism?You are definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed. Read it again. If you still have difficulty with my post ask your guidance counselor to explain it to you. :wavey:

Do you ever have a positive thought? Or do you spend every waking hour mourning the demise of the CSA?

Dalton Wayne
06-28-2011, 12:03
And tell us what the south did to Lawrence

shoe's on the other foot now lol
If I could got back in time I'd issue Shermans troupes each a bic lighter

Spike 7.62
06-28-2011, 12:16
War is hell, truly. "Terrorism" is just a touchy emotional term some use to make one side look better or worse than the other, when both sides will do whatever it takes to win. The word has no meaning to me.

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 12:20
Terrorism:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants (civilians)...

That is exactly what Lincoln and his Generals did to the South.

Any questions?

Possessing slaves was terrorism too.

Natty
06-28-2011, 12:43
War is hell, truly. "Terrorism" is just a touchy emotional term some use to make one side look better or worse than the other, when both sides will do whatever it takes to win. The word has no meaning to me.

Wow, thanks for telling all of us how you feel about the US servicemen who have fought and died fighting the war against "Terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Natty
06-28-2011, 12:45
Possessing slaves was terrorism too.

So you are saying that the fact that the Northern/Union States had slavery for 89 years, including after the Civil War was over makes them terrorists.

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 12:53
So you are saying that the fact that the Northern/Union States had slavery for 89 years, including after the Civil War was over makes them terrorists.

The slave traders and owners used techniques that were inhuman.

Very few of the almost 4 million slaves in the US, remained slaves after the CW.

The slavery apologists, such as yourself, always want to point to exceptions as a means to distract folks from the horrors of the southern slavery institution.

What Sherman did to the South pales in comparison to the atrocities committed in the South regarding slaves, not to mention Confederates like Bill Anderson's deeds.

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 12:59
Terrorism:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants (civilians)...

That is exactly what Lincoln and his Generals did to the South.

Any questions?

Morgan's raiders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan's_Raid

strike fear in the civilian population of several Northern states

raiders' propensity for procuring personal goods from local stores and houses

Yea, sounds like terrorism to me.

Spike 7.62
06-28-2011, 13:03
Wow, thanks for telling all of us how you feel about the US servicemen who have fought and died fighting the war against "Terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As one of those servicemen, you're welcome :wavey:

G26S239
06-28-2011, 13:07
Wow, thanks for telling all of us how you feel about the US servicemen who have fought and died fighting the war against "Terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
After you accuse all of the North of being terrorists. :upeyes: Hypocrite.

Natty
06-28-2011, 13:09
The slave traders and owners used techniques that were inhuman.



The USA had slavery for 89 years.

The Confederate States of America had slavery for 4 years.

Not one slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship.

They all came here on USA ships and European countries ships.

Many people, even so called 'historians', like to say that the Civil War ended slavery.

After the war was over there was still slavery in the Union/Northern states.

Owning slaves was legal and protected by the United States Supreme Court... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Abraham Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).

Lincoln's own family were slave owners (Mordecai Lincoln).

Lincoln, as a lawyer, went to court and argued to have a runaway female slave, and her children, returned to their slave owner. (Matson slave case).

Union General Ulysses S. Grant was a slave owner.
Union General Don Carlos Buell was a slave owner.

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the US, from New York, was a slave owner.

William Penn, famous Pennsylvanian was a slave owner.

Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania was a slave owner and slave trader.

Hero of the American Revolution, John Hancock from Massachusetts, was a slave owner and slave trader.

There was slavery in the North for 200 years, starting when they were colonies and lasting until after the Civil War was over.

Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 13:12
Wow, thanks for telling all of us how you feel about the US servicemen who have fought and died fighting the war against "Terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is a poorly named war.

Beyond that, I think we are going after the people that need killing.

Natty
06-28-2011, 13:15
As one of those servicemen, you're welcome :wavey:

Thank you for your service.

I'm sure you would have fought for the Confederacy against the Northern invasion of tyranny.

No other time in our history has the US armed forces fought against freedom and independence.

PBCounty
06-28-2011, 13:20
http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/assets_c/2011/06/LarryKingWatchingTennisgif-thumb-350x197-20329.gif

Spike 7.62
06-28-2011, 13:22
This thread really did turn into the slavery debate... someone said it would, and I thought "no thats silly, that doesn't have anything to do with the article". Turns out I was wrong :/

Natty, my point is that "terrorism" is just a propaganda term. All combat is pretty terrorizing, no matter the conflict or the reasons for it.

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 13:22
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

The Confederate States of America had slavery for 4 years.

Not one slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship.

They all came here on USA ships and European countries ships.

Many people, even so called 'historians', like to say that the Civil War ended slavery.

After the war was over there was still slavery in the Union/Northern states.

Owning slaves was legal and protected by the United States Supreme Court... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Abraham Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).

Lincoln's own family were slave owners (Mordecai Lincoln).

Lincoln, as a lawyer, went to court and argued to have a runaway female slave, and her children, returned to their slave owner. (Matson slave case).

Union General Ulysses S. Grant was a slave owner.
Union General Don Carlos Buell was a slave owner.

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the US, from New York, was a slave owner.

William Penn, famous Pennsylvanian was a slave owner.

Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania was a slave owner and slave trader.

Hero of the American Revolution, John Hancock from Massachusetts, was a slave owner and slave trader.

There was slavery in the North for 200 years, starting when they were colonies and lasting until after the Civil War was over.

Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?

So you are saying slavery is good and my family should be able to reclaim our property?


Taking away someone's property is a difficult thing in a just legal system and legally slaves were property.

If the southern states has not broken from the USA, slavery would have continued for many years.
If the southern states had not fired the first shots, the civil war may not have been a shooting war.
If the south has continued on into Washington after the battle of Bull Run, the war could have been over in a couple months not years.
If, If, If, If....


The Civil war was fought over slavery (property) rights.

Natty
06-28-2011, 13:45
This thread really did turn into the slavery debate... someone said it would, and I thought "no thats silly, that doesn't have anything to do with the article". Turns out I was wrong :/

Natty, my point is that "terrorism" is just a propaganda term. All combat is pretty terrorizing, no matter the conflict or the reasons for it.

What is the "propaganda term" that our Govt has our troops fighting and dying against in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Natty
06-28-2011, 13:50
So you are saying slavery is good and my family should be able to reclaim our property?


Read my post carefully. I never said slavery was good. Just that the US considered slavery legal.

Natty
06-28-2011, 13:55
The Civil war was fought over slavery (property) rights.

Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?

Spike 7.62
06-28-2011, 14:17
What is the "propaganda term" that our Govt has our troops fighting and dying against in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't really understand what you're getting at. I'd ask you to re-phrase, but this is a LONG way off from discussing the ARTICLE posted in the OP. If you have something to discuss besides the article, please start your own thread. If I were a mod here I would be doing some serious fat-trimming from this thread.

G26S239
06-28-2011, 14:18
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

The Confederate States of America had slavery for 4 years.
That is disingenuous bs Natty. Just like every other time you have spouted that drivel. Every State that was part of the CSA had the peculiar institution of slavery for their entire existence as a state up to the point that the CSA was formed.

Not one slave ever came to the US on a Confederate ship.
Slave importation was outlawed into the USA in 1808, decades before the CSA was formed.

They all came here on USA ships and European countries ships.
The "They did it too" excuse. :upeyes: As noted above no slaves were brought into the USA from abroad after 1808.

Many people, even so called 'historians', like to say that the Civil War ended slavery.The 13th Amendment passed the Senate in April 1864, passed by the House in January 1865 and declared the law of the land in December 1865 as a direct result of the Southern States of the CSA not being able to block it while they were in open rebellion genius. Ergo, slavery was abolished as a direct result of the civil war.

After the war was over there was still slavery in the Union/Northern states.
See above.

Owning slaves was legal and protected by the United States Supreme Court... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
So? It was still outlawed by the end of 1865.

Abraham Lincoln married into a prominent slave owning family (Todds).So what? He still declared the Emancipation Proclamation and agitated for passage of the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln's own family were slave owners (Mordecai Lincoln).
I have a relative in prison for attempted murder and a cousin who grows pot. That does not mean that I grow pot, or that I ever tried to murder someone.

Lincoln, as a lawyer, went to court and argued to have a runaway female slave, and her children, returned to their slave owner. (Matson slave case).
Attorneys have also been known to defend murderers in accordance with their 6th Amendment and Bar Association obligations. I presume that many do so without necessarily approving of murder.

Union General Ulysses S. Grant was a slave owner.
Union General Don Carlos Buell was a slave owner.
And John Newton was a slave trader before having a epiphany and writing Amazing Grace and preaching against slavery.

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the US, from New York, was a slave owner.The "He did it too" defense. :upeyes:

William Penn, famous Pennsylvanian was a slave owner."He did it too."

Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania was a slave owner and slave trader.
"He did it too."

Hero of the American Revolution, John Hancock from Massachusetts, was a slave owner and slave trader."He did it too."

There was slavery in the North for 200 years, starting when they were colonies and lasting until after the Civil War was over.As noted above the 13th Amendment passed the House and Senate before the war was over and was declared within 8 months of Lee's surrender as a direct result of the Civil War.

Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?Probably because it was more pragmatic to tackle the CSA aggression at Fort Sumter head on instead of quibbling over the 13th Amendment in April 1861.

pknimrod
06-28-2011, 14:37
And this is why the OP was talking about "re enactments". You folks are STILL fighting the Civil War (oops, sorry, "the War of Northern Aggression"). STILL trying to justify slavery. The was was fought. You lost. Slavery is wrong now and it was wrong then. Admit it. Get over it. Move on. What is heaven's name is wrong with saying: "My ancestors were slave owners and fought a war to continue that. They were wrong!" The same is true of the attempts by "Christians" to justify slavery.
Peter.

czsmithGT
06-28-2011, 15:05
This thread really did turn into the slavery debate... someone said it would, and I thought "no thats silly, that doesn't have anything to do with the article". Turns out I was wrong :/


Didn't take Kreskin to see this thread would drift off topic and then go over a cliff.

nmk
06-28-2011, 15:07
So where do the Yankees reenact Sherman's army going through the South?

Burning down barns, houses, towns, entire cities. Waging war upon civilians and kidnapping women, pillaging, looting, stealing everything they could get their hands on and destroying the rest.

This is what helped win Lincoln's war.

Now days we call it Terrorism.

I was waiting for you to troll this! :rofl:

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 16:17
Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?


Taking away someone's property is a difficult thing in a just legal system and legally slaves were property.


If the Union had decided to stop slavery in the first days of the war, they would have lost MD. And the war wouldn't have been about bring the Union back together.

By waiting until the war was protracted, and ONLY freeing the confederate slaves, it was a political win and a military win.

You have to remember that Lincoln said he would not free the slaves if he was elected.

So the south preemptedly left the union before any wrong was done against them. Fired the first shot, starting the shooting war. And started committing acts of what would now be called terrorism first.

If they had waited, until Lincoln had tried to pass a law against slavery....
If they had waited until for the North to fire first....
If they have not gone into the north, ....

Bogey
06-28-2011, 16:38
The person that wrote the article is obviously a Progressive.


For all you Pro-Union guys....I once was in your camp.

It was not until I started learning of historical sources outside of modern day educational institutions that a great deal of History had been re-written to fit an agenda.

We are living in a cruel world, and it's getting worse every day.

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 16:50
That is disingenuous bs Natty. Just like every other time you have spouted that drivel. Every State that was part of the CSA had the peculiar institution of slavery for their entire existence as a state up to the point that the CSA was formed.

Slave importation was outlawed into the USA in 1808, decades before the CSA was formed.

The "They did it too" excuse. :upeyes: As noted above no slaves were brought into the USA from abroad after 1808.
The 13th Amendment passed the Senate in April 1864, passed by the House in January 1865 and declared the law of the land in December 1865 as a direct result of the Southern States of the CSA not being able to block it while they were in open rebellion genius. Ergo, slavery was abolished as a direct result of the civil war.
See above.

So? It was still outlawed by the end of 1865.
So what? He still declared the Emancipation Proclamation and agitated for passage of the 13th Amendment.

I have a relative in prison for attempted murder and a cousin who grows pot. That does not mean that I grow pot, or that I ever tried to murder someone.
Attorneys have also been known to defend murderers in accordance with their 6th Amendment and Bar Association obligations. I presume that many do so without necessarily approving of murder.

And John Newton was a slave trader before having a epiphany and writing Amazing Grace and preaching against slavery.
The "He did it too" defense. :upeyes:
"He did it too."
"He did it too."
"He did it too."
As noted above the 13th Amendment passed the House and Senate before the war was over and was declared within 8 months of Lee's surrender as a direct result of the Civil War.
Probably because it was more pragmatic to tackle the CSA aggression at Fort Sumter head on instead of quibbling over the 13th Amendment in April 1861.

Excellent rebuttal. Thanks.

Detectorist
06-28-2011, 16:57
Why didn't the Union states free their slaves before they invaded the South?

Natty,

I'm going to post this once and then not post any more under this thread...

For 7 years, during my first stay in Missouri, I was a volunteer on the day before Memorial Day to post US Flags on the grave sites of Jefferson Baracks National Cemetary. I proudly placed the American flags on all military graves.

There were many Confederate graves that I also placed the flag on. They were Americans, too, and my brothers. I never thought of them as lesser folks because they fought for the Confederacy.

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 17:57
The person that wrote the article is obviously a Progressive.


For all you Pro-Union guys....I once was in your camp.

It was not until I started learning of historical sources outside of modern day educational institutions that a great deal of History had been re-written to fit an agenda.

We are living in a cruel world, and it's getting worse every day.

Did you read Confederate states declarations of independence from the Union?
I think they made it very clear that the war was about Slavery.

Bogey
06-28-2011, 18:38
Did you read Confederate states declarations of independence from the Union?
I think they made it very clear that the war was about Slavery.

It was TURNED into slavery.

Not what it was about at all to begin with.

I lived almost the first half of my life believing everything that was spoon fed to me. I even lived in a part of the country that did nothing but denigrate the south....calling all southerners unrefined hicks. (paraphrased) It was as though it was a form of racism. Once I moved south, I couldn't quite figure out why much of what I was taught was incorrect. And the stereotypes dead wrong.

Having been in the South 32 years, I am proud to denounce my Yankee heritage and live amongst the dregs of the South.

You go right ahead and keep believing the war started over slavery. I'll cling to God, guns, and the truth.

It's not going to do any good to discuss this any further. I know how it will turn out.

Ruggles
06-28-2011, 18:51
Slavery was inhuman and cruel beyond words, it was not a highlight of any history on this continent.

That being said it was not a solely "southern" institution by any means. It was a worldwide crime committed thru out history by all colors and creeds against their own and other colors and creeds.

Re-enacting the Civil War / War Between The States is not a endorsement on the merits of slavery IMO.

RWBlue
06-28-2011, 22:49
It was TURNED into slavery.

Not what it was about at all to begin with.


Now, that is where I disagree with you. South Carolina's declaration of independence (I know this is not the correct term, but I forget the correct term) specifically stated slavery as a reason. So did some of the other states.

G26S239
06-28-2011, 23:22
Now, that is where I disagree with you. South Carolina's declaration of independence (I know this is not the correct term, but I forget the correct term) specifically stated slavery as a reason. So did some of the other states.
Here are the Declaration Of Causes Of Seceding States RWBlue. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Here is the Cornerstone Speech. Look at paragraph 9 in particular. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76 The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. Alexander H. Stephens Vice President of the CSA March 21 1861.

Don H
06-28-2011, 23:53
Salon.com :puking:

kirgi08
06-29-2011, 00:34
:popcorn:

Natty
07-02-2011, 03:40
Slave importation was outlawed into the USA in 1808, decades before the CSA was formed.

The "They did it too" excuse. :upeyes: As noted above no slaves were brought into the USA from abroad after 1808.

Sorry but this is simply not true. The US may have passed a law to feel better but they did not use their own ships to enforce this law for the next 50 years.

Read about the Slave ship 'Wanderer' from New York. It flew the New York yacht club flag and the US flag. They certainly went to Africa and picked up slaves and delivered them to the US in 1858. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wanderer_%28slave_ship%29


As noted above the 13th Amendment passed the House and Senate before the war was over and was declared within 8 months of Lee's surrender as a direct result of the Civil War.
Probably because it was more pragmatic to tackle the CSA aggression at Fort Sumter head on instead of quibbling over the 13th Amendment in April 1861.

It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

Union states of Delaware and Kentucky also rejected the 13th Amendment and would not ratify it until many years later.

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

:cool:

vikingsoftpaw
07-02-2011, 07:35
deleted

vikingsoftpaw
07-02-2011, 07:36
Given that it is Salon Magazine and the author would rather be reporting from Burning Man, what should we really expect?

dherloc
07-02-2011, 10:03
Here are the Declaration Of Causes Of Seceding States RWBlue. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Here is the Cornerstone Speech. Look at paragraph 9 in particular. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76 The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. Alexander H. Stephens Vice President of the CSA March 21 1861.

Lots of discussion about slavery in these documents of independance. Maybe it was about slavery after all...at least partly. :supergrin:

G26S239
07-02-2011, 11:14
Sorry but this is simply not true. The US may have passed a law to feel better but they did not use their own ships to enforce this law for the next 50 years.So? The importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808.

Read about the Slave ship 'Wanderer' from New York. It flew the New York yacht club flag and the US flag. They certainly went to Africa and picked up slaves and delivered them to the US in 1858. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wanderer_%28slave_ship%29 And they were prosecuted for doing so, although not convicted.



It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

Union states of Delaware and Kentucky also rejected the 13th Amendment and would not ratify it until many years later.The 13th Amendment still passed the Senate in April 1864. It still passed the House in January 1865. It was still adopted in December 1865.

Contrast that with Article 1 Section 9 .4 of the Constitution of the CSA "No bill of attainder, ex post fact law or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#A1Sec9

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

:cool:And the CSA is still defunct. :cool:

G26S239
07-02-2011, 11:14
Lots of discussion about slavery in these documents of independance. Maybe it was about slavery after all...at least partly. :supergrin::thumbsup:

RichardB
07-02-2011, 13:30
Are there any old farts here who would like to go to a reenactment of Hamburger Hill or a thousand other bad dreams?

Sam Spade
07-02-2011, 14:50
It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

:cool:

You know, revisionist history is one thing, but you far exceed even that label. NJ outlawed slavery in 1810. The youngest slave possible in NJ would have been in his late 50s, well beyond the life expectancy of people in that day and age. Besides which, the 1860 census shows that there was a grand total of 0 slaves in the state. I know this has been pointed out to you before. So your claim that the state "didn't want to give them up" can only be seen as a lie.

For your Ft. Sumter claim, its significant that you use the weasle word "proven". The Union, in remarkable mercy for that day and age, chose to not pursue charges of treason against anyone. Even so, it's trivial to prove that firing on a US installation and US soldiers is a criminal act.


Edit: fixed it on checking. There were a mere 256 slaves in NJ in the 1850 census and absolutely no slaves at all listed in NJ in the 1860 census. Here, from a pro-secesh site: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm

Dragoon44
07-02-2011, 15:57
As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

Fort Sumter was the legal property of the Union. It was obtained from SC legally and the SC legislature gave up all claim to the property.

So in short you are trying to claim there is nothing illegal in seizing someone else's property by force.

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.
__________________

Even Robert E. Lee knew secession was not legal.

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." - Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861


And since you are so fond of SCOTUS rulings ( at least the Dred Scott one) here are some SCOTUS rulings for you on secession.

White v. Hart

"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. If need be, it has the right also to call on the government of the Union for the requisite aid to that end. Whatever precautionary or penal measures the State may take when the insurrection is suppressed, the proposition would be a strange one to maintain, that while it lasted the county was not a part of the State, and hence was absolved from the duties, liabilities, and restrictions which would have been incumbent upon it if it had remained in its normal condition and relations. The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also the authority to guard against the renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same." [80 US 646, 650-651]

Thorington v. Smith

"It cannot be questioned that the Confederate notes were issued in furtherance of an unlawful attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, by insurrectionary force." [75 US 1, 7]


Hickman v. Jones

"The rebellion out of which the war grew was without any legal sanction. In the eye of the law, it had the same properties as if it had been the insurrection of a county or smaller municipal territory against the State to which it belonged. ... The union of the States, for all the purposes of the Constitution, is as perfect and indissoluble as the union of the integral parts of the States themselves; and nothing but revolutionary violence can, in either case, destroy the ties which hold the parts together. ... The rebellion was simply an armed resistance to the rightful authority of the sovereign." [76 US 197, 200]

Williams v. Bruffy

"The pleas aver that a confederation was formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, and that under a law of this confederation, enforced in Virginia, the debt due to the plaintiffs was sequestrated. Now, the Constitution of the United States prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another. The organization whose enactment is pleaded cannot, therefore, be regarded in this court as having any legal existence." [96 US 176, 182]

Lamar v. Micou

"The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States." [112 US 452. 476]

Gray_Rider
07-02-2011, 16:37
The wealth in slaves' aggregate value held in the South translated into todays dollars would be five to six trillion dollars. See "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" Larry Tagg. As I have stated in many other posts; the Southern slaves were probably treated far better than in any other country in the history of the world. Had the slaves been treated as badly is commonly taught, they would have revolted long before the war and or during the war as was Lincoln's plan with his famous proclamation. The proclamation caused thousands of Union troops to desert. Indiana considered leaving the Union over it. The New York "draft riots", 1863, were caused by it. Yeah, the Union, and the war, was all about ending slavery. And before any Confederacy haters go on a rampage about the "evils" of slavery, I never said the "institution" was wonderfull. I have said repeatedly that it WORKED. When I see some symphathy for all the other slaves kept throughout history, I will be happy to discuss it with anyone here. And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys. He knew he had time on his side. Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment in March of 1861. Fort Sumter wasn't fired on till April 9. The 13 amendment, boiled down, said the Southern states could keep their slaves; Just accept the proposed 13 amendment and it would all be over. Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

G26S239
07-02-2011, 17:29
I never said the "institution" was wonderfull. I have said repeatedly that it WORKED.
So did Dr. Watson's experiment on baby Albert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment The fact that the experiment was a success doesn't justify abusing babies for science.

And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys.
Why should he have done that? Any such action on his part could have been construed as tacit recognition of the legitimacy of the CSA.

He knew he had time on his side. Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment in March of 1861. Fort Sumter wasn't fired on till April 9. The 13 amendment, boiled down, said the Southern states could keep their slaves; Just accept the proposed 13 amendment and it would all be over. Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!
Amendment XIII
Section 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2 Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What part of the 13 Amendment allows slavery to continue in any area under US jurisdiction Gray_Rider?

Sam Spade
07-02-2011, 17:54
What part of the 13 Amendment allows slavery to continue in any area under US jurisdiction Gray_Rider?
You've quoted the ratified 13th. Prior to that, there were several proposed Amendments that went nowhere, but would have been the 13th. I'm unaware of what he means to the tariffs associated with any such proposals. Google the Crittenden Compromise to see some of the attempts to keep the South in the fold.

Dragoon44
07-02-2011, 18:14
The wealth in slaves' aggregate value held in the South translated into todays dollars would be five to six trillion dollars.

So what? Lincoln plainly stated he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. He would however prevent it from spreading into new territories and new states, and it was THIS that was intolerable to the south.They demanded the right to bring slavery into the territories and any new states.

the Southern slaves were probably treated far better than in any other country in the history of the world. Had the slaves been treated as badly is commonly taught, they would have revolted long before the war

there were slave revolts and the south lived in fear of them.

And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys.

Of course refused to see them, to do so would have given the Confederacy the appearance of legitimacy which Lincoln was not willing to do. President Buchanan Received the emissary of The State of South Carolina whose message was surrender Fort Sumter or prepare for war.

Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.


Except that tariffs were never brought up in the articles of secession . The "tariffs" argument was created after the south lost and tried to rationalize why their rebellion was noble and legitimate.

To be sure Tariffs were a matter of discord between the North and the south. But Not a single article of secession mentions Tariffs as a reason for secession.

Dragoon44
07-02-2011, 18:18
You've quoted the ratified 13th. Prior to that, there were several proposed Amendments that went nowhere, but would have been the 13th. I'm unaware of what he means to the tariffs associated with any such proposals. Google the Crittenden Compromise to see some of the attempts to keep the South in the fold.

The one Grey rider is referring to is the Corwin amendment which passed Both houses but was never ratified. For some strange reason the "Peaceful" South was not interested in the amendment that would have constitutionally protected slavery in their existing states.

Here is the amendment as passed, and it was passed in Feb 1861, not proposed by Lincoln in March 1861 as Grey rider claims.

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Lincoln urged the states to ratify it.

Sam Spade
07-02-2011, 18:47
The one Grey rider is referring to is the Corwin amendment which passed Both houses but was never ratified. For some strange reason the "Peaceful" South was not interested in the amendment that would have constitutionally protected slavery in their existing states.

Here is the amendment as passed, and it was passed in Feb 1861, not proposed by Lincoln in March 1861 as Grey rider claims.



Lincoln urged the states to ratify it.

That had nothing to do with tariffs, either. GR seems to be claiming a quid pro quo between Northern acceptance of slavery and Southern acceptance of tariffs. I still don't know what he meant.

Anyway, notice the repeated offers from the North to bend on slavery and preserve the Union, even with Lincoln elected. But the Fire-eaters carried too much clout in the South. They had too much wealth tied in human flesh and too much control over press and pulpit. The CS soldier may have fought for a lot of reasons, but he was manipulated into fighting to preserve wealth: slavery. Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.

Dragoon44
07-02-2011, 19:37
That had nothing to do with tariffs, either. GR seems to be claiming a quid pro quo between Northern acceptance of slavery and Southern acceptance of tariffs. I still don't know what he meant.

GR like the other neo confederates are simply bleating the Neo confederate dogma in keeping the the "lost cause" mythology promoted by the losing confederates AFTER the war.

RWBlue
07-02-2011, 22:14
Are there any old farts here who would like to go to a reenactment of Hamburger Hill or a thousand other bad dreams?

I think reenacting Grenada might be interesting.:supergrin: Let me go lie on the beach for a while. Fly around in an helo and see the island.


I would suggest reenacting D-day, but I think freeing France twice last century is enough. If I landed there with a gun they probably would not be happy and might start shooting real bullets.

Natty
07-03-2011, 01:34
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".

...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, 1848.

G26S239
07-03-2011, 02:39
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".

...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, 1848.
"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Abraham Lincoln, April 6, 1859. Letter to Henry Pierce.


"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Constitution of the CSA Article 1, Section 9.4 Adopted March 11, 1861. Too bad Natty, no more slaves for you. :crying:

Natty
07-03-2011, 05:43
"Whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

-- Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Natty
07-03-2011, 05:50
It was TURNED into slavery.

Not what it was about at all to begin with.



Agreed.

First the Union said they were fighting to save the Union.

After the number of dead and wounded Union soldiers started to reach unbearable numbers, into the hundreds of thousands...

They then had come up with something more compelling to justify what they were really fighting for.

So they changed it to fighting to free the slaves.

Natty
07-03-2011, 06:31
You know, revisionist history is one thing, but you far exceed even that label. NJ outlawed slavery in 1810. The youngest slave possible in NJ would have been in his late 50s, well beyond the life expectancy of people in that day and age. Besides which, the 1860 census shows that there was a grand total of 0 slaves in the state. I know this has been pointed out to you before. So your claim that the state "didn't want to give them up" can only be seen as a lie.

For your Ft. Sumter claim, its significant that you use the weasle word "proven". The Union, in remarkable mercy for that day and age, chose to not pursue charges of treason against anyone. Even so, it's trivial to prove that firing on a US installation and US soldiers is a criminal act.


Edit: fixed it on checking. There were a mere 256 slaves in NJ in the 1850 census and absolutely no slaves at all listed in NJ in the 1860 census. Here, from a pro-secesh site: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm

This is simply not true. In 1860 New Jersey still had 18 slaves. But they changed the name of their slaves to "apprentices for life" to make everyone feel better.

http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

Sam Spade
07-03-2011, 08:54
This is simply not true. In 1860 New Jersey still had 18 slaves. But they changed the name of their slaves to "apprentices for life" to make everyone feel better.

http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

Fine, we'll use your numbers for discussion.

Are you really going to sit there and claim that the entire state of NJ voted against the 13th because "They still had slaves and did not want to give them up"? Really? The need to hang onto 18 aging, irreplaceable slaves, sure to be dead in another 20 years, tops, was so important that the entire state voted to protect those few owners? The state of NJ was okay with banning the import of slaves in 1786, was okay with freeing those born to slave parents after 1810, but those 18 souls stopped Emancipation in its tracks because "They still had slaves and did not want to give them up?"

This is a ridiculous claim and deserves to be ridiculed. Thinking back, it's the silliest claim you've ever made about slavery and the war, and that's saying something.

Dragoon44
07-03-2011, 09:01
"Whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

-- Declaration of Independence, 1776.

And by the people, they meant the people as a whole, not one subdivision of them.

The First 7 states to secede did so simply on the fact that Lincoln was elected president. They could claim no grievous injury or oppression at his hands since the seceded even before he even took office.

President Buchanan addressed this very issue.

“In order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of ‘a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise’ of powers not granted by the Constitution. The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy.” (Taken from Buchanan’s Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December, 1860.)

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:

"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing the Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant troth to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain."
[end quote] [4th Annual Message to Congress, 3 Dec 1859]

Sam Spade
07-03-2011, 09:11
"Whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

-- Declaration of Independence, 1776.

The means to alter our Perpetual Union were given: the amendment process. The means to abolish the Perpetual Union were also given: the Constitutional Convention. The South refused peaceful, legal means and appealed to force of arms. They made war on their nation, and that's the definition of treason.

After the rebellion failed, the guys on the ground chose mercy as the more healing approach, but that decision wasn't unanimous. They got forgiveness, not vindication.

Dragoon44
07-03-2011, 11:13
Agreed.

First the Union said they were fighting to save the Union.

After the number of dead and wounded Union soldiers started to reach unbearable numbers, into the hundreds of thousands...

They then had come up with something more compelling to justify what they were really fighting for.

So they changed it to fighting to free the slaves.

Neo confederates can't seem to get their stories straight. You claim that the "fight to end slavery" rallied the nation while Grey rider claims the emancipation proclamation caused riots in the North and had union states threatening to secede.

:rofl::rofl:

Dragoon44
07-03-2011, 11:15
After the rebellion failed, the guys on the ground chose mercy as the more healing approach, but that decision wasn't unanimous. They got forgiveness, not vindication.

And the loser chose to reinvent themselves and their cause, creating the Myth of the "lost cause" claiming they were fighting for freedom and liberty instead of fighting to deny freedom and liberty to millions of people born in the U.S.

Gray_Rider
07-03-2011, 21:02
Neo confederates can't seem to get their stories straight. Grey rider claims the emancipation proclamation caused riots in the North and had union states threatening to secede.


We can't get our stories straight? I claim the emancipation proclamation caused riots? You choose to ignore facts Dragoon.

Read up on the 1863 draft riots. For four days, July 13th to July 16th New York riots destroyed millions of dollars of property and hundreds were killed by the rioters and federal troops, late of the battle of Gettysburg, who fired point blank on the rioters. It was only the largest anti government insurgency in United States history, and took a massive use of deadly force against Northern people to put down.


"Dictator is what the Oppositon press and orators of all sizes are calling him...There is no telling how many editors and penmen have..assured him that this is a war for the Union only, and they never gave him any authority to to run it as an Abolition war....They never, never told him that he might set the negros free....that his venomous blow at the at the sacred liberty of white men to own black men is mere (empty threat) and a dead letter that will not work... the hosts of the Union will disband rather than be sacrificed upon the bloody altar of fanatical Abolitionsim."

William O. Stoddard Secretary in charge of Lincoln's mail.

Yes, the war was all about ending slavery. And this was from Northern newspapers and citizens. Lincoln had hundreds arrested and held w/o trial. Dozens of Northern news papers were denied the use of the mails or were destroyed by Federal troops because they spoke out about his rape of the Constutition and dictatorial misuse of power. Just more neo Confederate crap that we conjured up 150 years after the fact I suppose?



Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
07-03-2011, 21:40
The means to alter our Perpetual Union were given: the amendment process. The means to abolish the Perpetual Union were also given: the Constitutional Convention. The South refused peaceful, legal means and appealed to force of arms. They made war on their nation, and that's the definition of treason.

After the rebellion failed, the guys on the ground chose mercy as the more healing approach, but that decision wasn't unanimous. They got forgiveness, not vindication.

Maybe they knew they couldn't prove treason in a court of law as Jefferson Davis himself suggested? He wanted his chance in court to prove his case after the war. Maybe?


Refused peacefull, legal means!!?? Lincoln refused every peace entreaty the Confederacy made and would not meet with them once! He then sent troops to reenforce Fort Sumter on the sly and called for 75,000 troops, threatening all out war if we didn't comply. We fired on the Fort to force its surrender, (after we offered them a chance to surrender) and we were invaded in early June in Western Virginia by Federal troops at the battle of Philippi.

Study up on the rape of the Constutition by Lincoln and his minions. How he locked up the innocent w/o trial. Started a war w/o Congress' approval. He sent Union troops to the polling sites to to humble and frighten off Democrat voters. Carved a new state out of the property of Virginia against the Constitutition.


We were the traitors?


*Read the books I have suggested. I have yet to see the facts therein refuted by anyone here. If its all Neo Confederate crap, refute the facts these books point out.


I'm still waiting.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Dragoon44
07-03-2011, 22:13
We can't get our stories straight? I claim the emancipation proclamation caused riots? You choose to ignore facts Dragoon.

No I simply recognize that you and Natty are not on the same page. He claims turning the war into a war to free the salves united the North, you say it divided the North. You obviously cannot BOTH be right.

Read up on the 1863 draft riots. For four days, July 13th to July 16th New York riots destroyed millions of dollars of property and hundreds were killed by the rioters and federal troops, late of the battle of Gettysburg, who fired point blank on the rioters. It was only the largest anti government insurgency in United States history, and took a massive use of deadly force against Northern people to put down.


No, the souths illegal secession by force of arms was the largest anti government insurrection in the history of the United States.


Yes, the war was all about ending slavery.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, You are presenting the response of newspapers to the emancipation proclamation in 1863 as evidence that the war was about ending slavery though the war started in 1861 is that right?

Lincoln had hundreds arrested and held w/o trial. Dozens of Northern news papers were denied the use of the mails or were destroyed by Federal troops because they spoke out about his rape of the Constutition and dictatorial misuse of power. Just more neo Confederate crap that we conjured up 150 years after the fact I suppose?

No one has claimed those things didn't happen, but I will point out they had absolutely NOTHING to do with why the south seceded or why the South started the war.

And while we are at it we might mention that Jefferson Davis suspended Habeus Corpus as well. Guess that made him a dictator huh?

And long before the War southern states were intercepting and destroying abolitionist material entering their states thru the mails.

in 1836 the "slave power" which dominated the House of representatives due to the slavers "property being counted for purposes of state representation in the House of Representative passed the "gag Rule" which forbid any debate, or any resolutions, etc on slavery.

says: "All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon."

John Adams fought against it as a violation of Constitutional rights.

Virginia had a law on the books that made it a criminal offense to say that a slave owner did not have a property right in his slaves.

Dragoon44
07-03-2011, 22:16
We were the traitors?


*Read the books I have suggested. I have yet to see the facts therein refuted by anyone here. If its all Neo Confederate crap, refute the facts these books point out.

you keep regurgitating this BS post the "Facts" you claim have not been refuted and I am sure Sam or I will be happy to discuss them. I for one am not going to by a book by a Neo Confederate just to read it and critique it.

Sam Spade
07-03-2011, 22:33
Grey, you think DiLorenzo is a credible source. That alone disinclines me from following any of your other bunny trails. Sorry, he's the Radley Balko of Civil War writing.

Gray_Rider
07-03-2011, 22:41
Slavery still worked when nothing else did in 1700's America, and we are STILL kissing the rumps and licking the sandals of the greatest slave dealers-buyers-makers in the last 1500 years. You hate slave holders dead and gone that lost their slaves forever 150 years ago but the most powerfull nation on earth licks the boots of modern day slavers and murderers while our government forces us to sit on billions of barrels of our own oil.

All I see here is white guilt and selective indignation. This wouldn't be happening today in the South (and probably the North) had we won. And. I think you know it. Funny how slavery ended everywhere else, but would have continued in the South. I don't see you condeming the North Koreans or Chinas use of REAL SLAVERY either come to think of it.

If the South "lost" and the slaves "freed" whats all the fuss over her flag about? Who should care where it flies or why if the Confederacy is a moot point and a 'defeated nation'? I think the truth about the war is gaining a foothold and you know it. If not what are you Confederate haters afraid of? Limited government? Lower taxes? Thats also what we fought for....and what your victory cost this nation, and ours.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
07-03-2011, 23:08
Others are not so closed minded. And I think Mr. D has a lot of the Lincoln cult quaking in their boots. The other books? One, "War for What?" was written decades before the others I have mentioned. The book "War crimes against Southern Civilians" is largely a compliation of eyewitness accounts of the victims and offical records of the pillagers and war criminals. I'm sure thats all neo Confederate pap too? How the Southern dead were disenterned and robbed of their jewelry? Black slaves and white housewives raped into insanity? Old, sick, children, infants, and infirm turned out into the winter while their homes burned behind them? What are you afraid of? Truth? Others are, shall we say, more curious?

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

dherloc
07-04-2011, 14:48
Grey,

Pretty sure what you are describing is total war. Happens in every war that has happend throughout history.

Don't get involved in a war and it doesn't happen. Or win it...thats an option too.

Gray_Rider
07-04-2011, 15:27
We asked to be left in peace. To go in peace. Read the books. What are you afraid of? The truth? Of course you won't follow up. I never expect you to. Easier that way.

But many, many others will. Tens of thousands already have. And thats my point of the many posts. And thats what you and the others are afraid of. People reading the facts and making up their own mind. Thats all I asked of you and or any others. Quite the crime isn't it? I still see only white guilt and selective indignation.

I ask again? What are you afraid of?

Gray_Rider


"I have heard. You are the gray rider. You would not make peace with the bluecoats. You may go in peace."

"We hoist on high the Bonny Blue flag..."

"We could have pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had to be done again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner"

General Robert E. Lee

Gray_Rider
07-04-2011, 15:50
Governor Stockdale....Those people choose, for whatever reason I know not, to hold me as a representve Southerner; hence, I know they watch my words and...what I say would be caught up by their speakers and newspapers, and magnified into a pretext to adding to the load of oppression they have placed on our poor people; and God knows, that load is heavy enough now...Governor; if I had forseen the the use those people designed to make of their victory there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I forseen the results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."

General Robert E. Lee to then Governor Stockdale of Texas, 1870

"I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat....I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government."

General Patrick Cleburne CSA

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

RWBlue
07-04-2011, 15:54
If the South "lost" and the slaves "freed" whats all the fuss over her flag about? Who should care where it flies or why if the Confederacy is a moot point and a 'defeated nation'? I think the truth about the war is gaining a foothold and you know it. If not what are you Confederate haters afraid of?


Hmm, It is kind of like NAZI Flags flying in Germany. A reminder of a nation that stood for something that others stood to put down because it was wrong.

And even if it wasn't for what happened in the war, how it was used after the war (Klan) ....

Dragoon44
07-04-2011, 19:20
All I see here is white guilt and selective indignation. This wouldn't be happening today in the South (and probably the North) had we won. And. I think you know it. Funny how slavery ended everywhere else, but would have continued in the South. I don't see you condeming the North Koreans or Chinas use of REAL SLAVERY either come to think of it.

More of your red herrings, when you can't answer or refute you start whining about slavery elsewhere. But this thread is not about slavery in General it is about the AMERICAN civil war, and what brought it about.

If the South "lost" and the slaves "freed" whats all the fuss over her flag about? Who should care where it flies or why if the Confederacy is a moot point and a 'defeated nation'?

The dispute is over what the confederate flag actually stands for, to some that have swallowed the neo confederate kool aid it stands for "states rights" and "freedom and liberty". To those that have not swallowed the "lost cause myth" it stands for treason and insurrection, and a society that believed it had the right to own other human beings denying them the "Liberty and freedom" that they afterwards claimed they were fighting for. And that they started the war not only to preserve slavery in their own states but to expand it.

I think the truth about the war is gaining a foothold and you know it. If not what are you Confederate haters afraid of? Limited government? Lower taxes? Thats also what we fought for....and what your victory cost this nation, and ours.

I challenge you to provide your evidence that the confederacy fought for limited Govt. and lower taxes. In ANY statement by Southern leaders concerning their secession BEFORE the war. Their leaders statements, articles of secession and the speeches of the secession commissioner's speak loud and clear as to why the south seceded. And in them there is not ONE WORD about lower taxes or more limited Govt.

THe South was not the least bit interested in Limited Govt. When they controlled the Govt. they were the best friend of centralized federal power.

In the revision of the "fugitive slave act" of 1850 they demanded and got the greatest expansion of Federal power in the History of the union that was unmatched until Roosevelt's "New deal". they demanded and got the Federal police power to be employed nationwide to protect their "property rights in slaves.

IN the Confederate constitution they denied member states to decide the issue of slavery for themselves, they also denied states the right of trading between themselves without the central govts. approval.

When in the union they declared the central govt had no right to interfere in the issue of slavery within the states. When they formed the confederacy they declared no state had the right to interfere with the central govts protection of slavery.

Sam Spade
07-04-2011, 19:22
Slavery still worked when nothing else did in 1700's America,...

You keep saying that. Anyone thinking critically has to ask, "Worked at what, exactly?"

Slavery "worked" to concentrate wealth among a new American aristocracy. It "worked" to tie future hopes to the land, turning away from modernization and industy. In order for it to "work" it had to provide disproportionate political power to those landed few, shutting down proper representation for the people in the nation as a whole. So yeah, if you aspire to the gentry caste, I can see it "working" and can see why you'd advocate for it. Except....

Except that those things weren't the purpose of our nation's founding. The nation was founded to secure our rights, using just power granted by the governed. "Our rights" mean the rights of all men, not merely the new aristocrats nor even all white men. Those were the rights granted us by our Creator, and the field n****r did not stem from a different God, and was not out there with the mark of Ham.

So, no sir. Slavery did not "work", not when you measure it against what this country was intended for.

Dragoon44
07-04-2011, 19:37
And I think Mr. D has a lot of the Lincoln cult quaking in their boots.

And I think that like most ardent neo confederate kool aid drinkers you are delusional. Mr. D is not even a historian he is a economist.

His central thesis is the claim that slavery was not the main issue of secession. The statements of the southern leaders before and during the war, their articles of secession, the speeches and letters of their secession commissioners, and the topic (slavery) of the presidential debates between Douglas and Lincoln prove that he is wrong.

Here is a debate Between Dilorenzo and Harry Jaffa one of the premier Lincoln scholars.

http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=9

The book "War crimes against Southern Civilians" is largely a compliation of eyewitness accounts of the victims and offical records of the pillagers and war criminals. I'm sure thats all neo Confederate pap too?

No sounds more like modern Liberal pap that wants to insist that war be conducted like a police action instead of war.

How the Southern dead were disenterned and robbed of their jewelry? Black slaves and white housewives raped into insanity? Old, sick, children, infants, and infirm turned out into the winter while their homes burned behind them? What are you afraid of? Truth? Others are, shall we say, more curious?

OMG, bad things happened during a war, who would have thought???

:upeyes:


And the Yankees were not the only ones rampaging, Confederate deserters where causing a huge problem and doing a great deal of damge to southern citizens themselves. And we have no less an authority on this than Robert E. Lee himself.

In a Letter to Davis on Sept 13, 1862 Lee stated that 1/2 to 1/2 of his army never entered Maryland at all.

He also stated that a great deal of damage was being caused by the deserters, stating, "A great deal of damage done to citizens by the deserters taking all the food from the charitable and taking by force from the defenseless, wantonly destroying stock and property."

Another letter from Lee to Davis, July 27, 1863 After Gettysburg. " "there are many thousands of men improperly absent from this army."

Dragoon44
07-04-2011, 20:03
Governor Stockdale....Those people choose, for whatever reason I know not, to hold me as a representve Southerner; hence, I know they watch my words and...what I say would be caught up by their speakers and newspapers, and magnified into a pretext to adding to the load of oppression they have placed on our poor people; and God knows, that load is heavy enough now...Governor; if I had forseen the the use those people designed to make of their victory there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I forseen the results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."

No authoritative Biography of Lee includes this because it is highly disputed since it was based on hearsay and not actual first hand account.

General Robert E. Lee to then Governor Stockdale of Texas, 1870

More evidence of your historical illiteracy and the fact you do not check your facts. FS Stockdale was elected Lt. Governor in 1863. He was Governor from May 1865 until August of 1865.

We asked to be left in peace. To go in peace.

The South did not go in peace, they were the beliegerents, they were the ones threatening war and committing acts of war in seizing the Legal property of the Union and firing on Union Ships and forts.

Dragoon44
07-04-2011, 22:09
Slavery "worked" to concentrate wealth among a new American aristocracy. It "worked" to tie future hopes to the land, turning away from modernization and industy. In order for it to "work" it had to provide disproportionate political power to those landed few, shutting down proper representation for the people in the nation as a whole. So yeah, if you aspire to the gentry caste, I can see it "working" and can see why you'd advocate for it. Except....


And that is precisely the kind of society the South had and the elite wanted to keep.

A few quotes Southern "thinkers" of the time.

George Fitzhugh


His idea to rectify social inequality created by capitalism was to institute a system of universal slavery, based on his belief that "nineteen out of every twenty individuals have...a natural and inalienable right to be slaves."


South Carolinian Thomas Cooper. Individuals, he argued, only have such rights and liberties as society wishes to give them. And in a healthy society, true liberty will be restricted to a relative few.

RichardB
07-05-2011, 11:46
.... if I had forseen the the use those people designed to make of their victory there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I forseen the results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."

General Robert E. Lee "

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

If this account is true, not just more "noble Robert E Lee" myth making, it is likely a post war covering up by Lee. He was part of a group of southern aristocrats that led the south, his people, into a total disaster. I'm not sure if it is evidence of guilt for sending 100s of thousands of southern men to their death or crippling for no good reason, and destroying the economy of that region.

It seems ridiculous that he expected to be treated as just another old guy when so many of his countrymen wanted him executed for treason. That may not have been the law; but that was what many thought.

He had the chance to die for his cause, as some other confederate generals did, but he declined.

Gray_Rider
07-22-2011, 20:33
I say again. Just read the books.....Quote or paraphrase from any of them and dispute them. Dispute for me Lincoln's rape of the Constutition. The arrest of thousands without trial or conviction. The unconstutitional formation of the state of West Virginia. The loss of thousands of votes from hostile Western Virginia counties.The smashing of printing presses by Union troops the intimadation of citizens at the ballot places by Union troops....ohh theres that Neo Confederate pap again...Dispute the book "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" Larry Tagg, and the dozens of offical records and direct quoted from NORTHERN neswpapers that he shut down or destroyed with Union bully boys.

I'm still waiting.

I still see only selective vindictiveness and and selective indignation about slavery. Union war crimes, even against free and slave blacks? Not to mention against defenseless women, children and the infirm? Pfffft! All Neo Confederate pap. We got in our time machines and wrote the diary entrys and the offical reports. Dang! You found us out!


And the wait goes on.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Gray_Rider
07-22-2011, 21:28
He had the chance to die for his cause, as some other confederate generals did, but he declined.

Read the books. Dispute them line by line. Any of them. Pick one. Dispute for me Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address to the Senate. Dispute for me his 1st and 2nd Inaugural Address. Dispute for me how the colonies acted as independent states before and after the Revolutionary War. Each state knew they could leave the "union" of other colonies and states at will.

Heres another reference to check out. (Not that you won't dismiss it unseen out of hand, but others won't) Southern History Series Volume l & ll other pamphlets and DVDs are available. There is one talk given over completely to "Secession and the Law of God".
Historical Presentations by Edward R. De Vries, Th.D.

c/o P.O. Box 618 Lowell Fla. Dr.DeVries@bibleschool.edu



Seems to me on at least one occasion towards the end of the war Lee had to be restrained by his men from leading the attack personally. They took hold of Travelers reins and forced him back to safety. (Ohhh dear that is probably a Southern Myth too! Funny how anything I offer is a myth or a falsehood, and damn the references offered; they being lies too and lies told by other liars) As a sidelight, Jackson, Longstreet, JEB Stewart, Cleburne, et al were often in the hottest parts of the battle. Dozens of those brave men died for their bravery. There were no treason trials because they knew it wouldn't stick. Thousands of Confederate soldiers would have taken to the hills and the fighting could have went on for decades. At a word from Lee they would have; Grant and Sherman feared that worse than anything. Read the books. See the History Channel's "Lee and Grant", if you don't wish to look it up for yourself. (Ohhh poop! They probably are lying about lots of historical facts too)

I'll be waiting.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

RichardB
07-23-2011, 10:06
"Seems to me on at least one occasion towards the end of the war Lee had to be restrained by his men from leading the attack personally. They took hold of Travelers reins and forced him back to safety. "

Then Lee was no longer the boss.

G26S239
07-23-2011, 15:31
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Lee surrended. The CSA went **** up after the revolt failed. The CSA never achieved diplomatic recognition from anyone. The CSA never was a legitimate country. It is dead in the water. Too bad for the CSA.

RWBlue
07-23-2011, 16:37
"Seems to me on at least one occasion towards the end of the war Lee had to be restrained by his men from leading the attack personally. They took hold of Travelers reins and forced him back to safety. "

Then Lee was no longer the boss.

That is what I was thinking.
or
It was all a ploy. In an effort to appear honorable, he didn't really want to go to the front and had someone setup to redirect him so as to not have to go.


Then again I always had respect for Lee and assume the above episode was made up by southerns after the war.

Gray_Rider
08-09-2011, 22:21
Yes. Too bad for our Constutitonal Republic. It went **** up after the "rebellion" also. If you think Lee wasn't the "boss" before, during, and after the above mentioned incident, you need to check your history.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

RichardB
08-11-2011, 08:42
Subordinates provide information, proposals, and opinions to commanders. I have difficulty imagining other American warriors such as a General Custer, Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, the WWI General Douglas MacArthur, General George Patton, General Joseph Stillwell, General Creighton Abrams and others after making a decision to get closer to the foe being restrained by over solicitous lackeys. This does not exclude ”inspirational theatrics” used as motivators at crunch time. Perhaps in the incident cited, Lee used some theater arts training, he had no real intention to lead the charge; otherwise he was weaker or more indecisive at times than he would have liked posterity to remember. We will probably never know.