Lincoln...did we Forget?

[BLTsandwedge]

150 years ago tonight, Abraham Lincoln was struck in the head by an assassin's .44 caliber ball while he and his wife Mary Todd watched a play entitled 'Our American Cousin' at the Ford Theater in Washington DC. Just five days earlier, Confederate General Robert Lee Surrendered his Army to U.S. Commanding General Ulysses Grant, at a small town called Appomattox, VA- virtually ending the U.S. Civil War. Abraham Lincoln died from his wound at 7:22am on April 15, 1865. Secretary Edwin Stanton declared '...now he belongs to the ages.'*

Despite Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the government of the people, by the people, for the people did not perish from the earth. In my mind, this was a very good thing.

Shalom



*debated. I know.

[BrentD]

Indeed. It was a sad day, but the nation survived, if the president did not.

[Charley]

Didn't forget at all. Urinated all over the Constitution, suspended habeus corpus, outlawed speech by people who disagreed with his policies, sent civilians to military tribunals, and so forth. All this was done in the United States, NOT the Confederate States! They don't teach that in schools. Lincoln was as bad as Obama in his ignoring the Constitution. Sic Semper Tyranus wasn't just a slogan, it was truth.

[Char-Gar]

sic semper tyrannis is what Brutus said when he plunged the knife into Julius Caesars heart and what Booth said as he hobbled accross the stage after shooting Lincoln. It translates "thus always to tyrants", and was appropriate under the circumstances.

[runfiverun]

in his papers Lincoln debated and lamented what he was going to do to the constitution of this country.
he knew the consequences of his actions, he also knew the consequences of not acting.
acting on blocking states rights was not something he took lightly, but he did not want the union to dissolve into two separate countries and was fully aware of what the constitution said should be done.
he also took what the constitution said very, very seriously.

that is not a decision I would want to make.

[dragonrider]

I did not forget, I raised a glass in toast "Now he is one for the ages"

[MtGun44]

Not a big fan of the man, as previously stated, he violated the Constitution massively
and wrongly.

[texaswoodworker]

150 years ago tonight, Abraham Lincoln was struck in the head by an assassin's .44 caliber ball while he and his wife Mary Todd watched a play entitled 'Our American Cousin' at the Ford Theater in Washington DC. Just five days earlier, Confederate General Robert Lee Surrendered his Army to U.S. Commanding General Ulysses Grant, at a small town called Appomattox, VA- virtually ending the U.S. Civil War. Abraham Lincoln died from his wound at 7:22am on April 15, 1865. Secretary Edwin Stanton declared '...now he belongs to the ages.'*

Despite Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the government of the people, by the people, for the people did not perish from the earth. In my mind, this was a very good thing.

Shalom



*debated. I know.















Sic semper tyrannis should tell you why he was assassinated. He was a tyrant in the true form of the word. History is unfortunately written by the victor, not for truth. Most are unaware of Lincoln's crimes. Booth's attack is portrayed as a crime against freedom, when it is actually an attack for freedom. Lincoln got what he deserved.

[Charley]

sic semper tyrannis is what Brutus said when he plunged the knife into Julius Caesars heart and what Booth said as he hobbled accross the stage after shooting Lincoln. It translates "thus always to tyrants", and was appropriate under the circumstances.
My Latin is kinda rusty...

[dlbarr]

......Booth's attack is portrayed as a crime against freedom, when it is actually an attack for freedom. Lincoln got what he deserved.

I was raised in northern Indiana and got all the pro-union, pro-Lincoln stuff shoved down my throat in school. Of course, I thought it was all true until I started reading other viewpoints as an adult.

I share your sentiments on his actions but can't agree with your opinion on "what he deserved". Wish he'd never been President, but JWB was sure no hero for what he did either.

[texaswoodworker]

I was raised in northern Indiana and got all the pro-union, pro-Lincoln stuff shoved down my throat in school. Of course, I thought it was all true until I started reading other viewpoints as an adult.

I share your sentiments on his actions but can't agree with your opinion on "what he deserved". Wish he'd never been President, but JWB was sure no hero for what he did either.
He started a war that cost 620,000 Americans their lives, trampled the Constitution, committed treason, and committed numerous war crimes. Death seems like an appropriate punishment for that tyrant.

JWB may not have been an angel, but I do not blame him for killing a tyrant.

[BrentD]

The reconstructionists are hard at work here too, sadly.

[Char-Gar]

Lincoln did have a full plate of issues to be certain. When the Southern States left the Union, he was besieged with Yankee fat cats screaming about what the loss of cheap high quality southern cotton and free trade and navigation on the Mississippi river would do to their wealth. While the South did not have an manufacturing base, it did have the North by the economic cojones.

Lincoln invaded the South to preserve the "union" and the economic interest of the northern fat cats. He was at the end of the day a venal crass politician. He killed and maimed well over 600,000 people and destroyed the economy of the south for a century in his heroic effort to preserve the union, all to protect the wealthy of the north. He was a hypocrite and a tyrant who earned the bullet he got in the back of the head.

I do not consider Booth a hero and neither do I consider Lincoln a man to be admired. Booth murdered just one man, but Lincoln killed over a half million men.

Those have been suckled on northern revisionist history adore the man and place him on Mt. Rushmore, but many people despise the man and all he stood for. I am one of those who consider him no better than Barack Obama and perhaps even a little worse, as Obama has not killed as many Americans as Lincoln did.

[nagantguy]

No we didn't forget, at least I didn't, on top of all the other crimes against the country and humanity old Abe was guilty of let's not forget the election day naval bombardment of New York. Lots of ways to deal with looting and riots shelling a city, a union city at that is so far beyond the pail. And let's not forget the freedslave /Lyberia disaster. For those two things alone sic seimper tyrannous rings true.

[MUSTANG]

in his papers Lincoln debated and lamented what he was going to do to the constitution of this country.
he knew the consequences of his actions, he also knew the consequences of not acting.
acting on blocking states rights was not something he took lightly, but he did not want the union to dissolve into two separate countries and was fully aware of what the constitution said should be done.
he also took what the constitution said very, very seriously.

that is not a decision I would want to make.


(1) Lincolns positions sounded a lot like our current President who often stated the same mantra on change: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

(2)There are also similarities to our previous President GW Bush: "I've abandoned Free Market Principles to Save Them".


Our founding fathers creation of the Constitution was a means of creating a Federal Republic, but also to constrain that same Federal Government within a very limited set of Powers. It was recognized that the saying "Power corrupts & Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" is an absolute truth. Or as Thomas Jefferson said:


"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. ME 16:346

[runfiverun]

Charles I need to add a yet to the end of your last words.

the policy's, statements, and agreements the man in the white house has made will eventually kill far more than 600-k people they might not all be Americans but the total will far exceed that figure.

[dilly]

We have found the perfect way to commemorate his tyranny: it's the date income taxes are due.

[Lonegun1894]

I have no problem with what Booth did, with the only exception being that I wish he had done it sooner. Lincoln was a *** and got better than he deserved, and the current traitor-in-chief isn't any better. I just hope this one leaves office safe and disgraced instead of getting put on a pedestal like his predecessor from the same State did by the brainless masses.

[Kent Fowler]

I have no problem with what Booth did, with the only exception being that I wish he had done it sooner. Lincoln was a *** and got better than he deserved, and the current traitor-in-chief isn't any better. I just hope this one leaves office safe and disgraced instead of getting put on a pedestal like his predecessor from the same State did by the brainless masses.

Ain't gonna happen. They will try to make a hero out of him, as they did Jimmy Carter.

[w5pv]

I read a thread the other day that stated all the Presidental Assassins were Democrats it gave the name and the who's but I think they were correct.

[smokeywolf]

Like nearly all presidents before and after him, Lincoln was owned lock, stock and barrel by big business and the uber wealthy. Want to know why the South had little choice but to secede? The following webpage explains a pretty significant chunk of the real reason.

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Like nearly all wars throughout recorded history, the war between the States was about greed. Slavery (much like political correctness today) was more of a "red herring".

smokeywolf

[Thumbcocker]

He's still dead. Civil war is still over.

[tdoyka]

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson

i wonder if it was obummer or light-head lincoln that is the greatest danger.

[troyboy]

Killing the president of these united states is an act of treason. Right or wrong this is a nation of laws. Right or wrong he was still the elected president. Booth was no hero and to think of him as such is totaly out of the realm of comprehnsion. None alive today were then so whatever side you choose to abide is the version you choose.

[white eagle]

what alloy did he use I wonder

[sundog]

The war of northern aggression is over in so far as formal hostilities have ceased. The real problems that led up to it mostly have not been solved and are exacerbated by most everything that has happened since. The tentacles slithering forth from the mire in foggy bottom are enslaving the citizenry. The loss of life, wellness and fulfillment was truly a great man-inspired tragedy.

[Char-Gar]

He's still dead. Civil war is still over.

I take it your family didn't suffer through the punitive period called reconstruction. In 1860 Mississippi was the most prosperous state in the country, in 1960 it was the poorest. The South suffered 100 years of economic destruction and social prejudice from the North. The social prejudice still exists, but the South is now the economic engine of the country.

It took 100 years to come back, but back we are. The destruction wrought on the South lasted 100 years and is still a living memory. I don't expect some Lincolnite to understand, nor do I care, if they do or don't.

The Civil War only ended in 1865 for the winners.

[aarolar]

I still to this day feel the south is handicapped from the civil war depending on what areas you look at.

[Char-Gar]

Killing the president of these united states is an act of treason. Right or wrong this is a nation of laws. Right or wrong he was still the elected president. Booth was no hero and to think of him as such is totaly out of the realm of comprehnsion. None alive today were then so whatever side you choose to abide is the version you choose.

There were still two countries when Lincoln was shot. Jeff Davis was still on the run and the Confederate States of American was still alive, though just barely. Booth was a Confederate patriot trying to rally the dying Confederacy. Is it treason to kill the chief enemy of your country? Was it treason to kill Obama Bin Laden?

I am not happy Booth killed Lincoln, for the Yankee nation took out their anger on the entire South and made things much worse. He was wrong headed to do so, but he was not a traitor, because he didn't give his allegiance to the USA but the CSA.

[Char-Gar]

The war of northern aggression is over in so far as formal hostilities have ceased. The real problems that led up to it mostly have not been solved and are exacerbated by most everything that has happened since. The tentacles slithering forth from the mire in foggy bottom are enslaving the citizenry. The loss of life, wellness and fulfillment was truly a great man-inspired tragedy.

Amen and Amen!

[Char-Gar]

[QUOTE=BLTsandwedge;3216626]

Despite Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the government of the people, by the people, for the people did not perish from the earth. In my mind, this was a very good thing."


Yes, Lincoln made a very pretty speech laced with pungent and pithy saying. Obama does the same thing.

[troyboy]

My country is the United States of America. I am an American so in my view he was a traitor and a scoundrel. You may have your opinion and I will have mine. I was not alive then and neither were you.

[Char-Gar]

The reconstructionists are hard at work here too, sadly.

I think you are using "reconstructionists" wrongly. Reconstruction is what the North did, or tried to do, to the South. I was a harsh punishment that lasted for 100 years. Now there might be some unreconstructed Confederate here, but I have not seen any reconstructionists, whoever that might be.

[shooter93]

He did what he had to do to win the War. The South was never going to win and there was never going to be a Confederate States Union. Jefferson Davis implored for the same powers Lincoln was using and of course the Southern states weren't interested and by mid war several were talking succession from the Confederacy I feel certain they would have fell apart and became more like Europe and despite our problems today we're better off with this Republic. We will never know but I believe Reconstruction would not have been the horror it was had Lincoln not be killed. talk about being owned by the power brokers Johnson was a true disaster for the country. I don't look at Lincoln or the War as good or bad at this point.....it's part of our History now.

[Char-Gar]

My country is the United States of America. I am an American so in my view he was a traitor and a scoundrel. You may have your opinion and I will have mine. I was not alive then and neither were you.

I am first, last and always a Texan. Texas just happens to be without the geographical boundaries of the United State, but I am open to the notion of changing that.

No, I was not alive then, but growing up I had family that were. All my lineal ancestors and many collateral ancestors served Texas units in the Confederate States Army. Some never returned. So, yes I identify more with the Confederate cause. I might add that the Confederate cause was to restore the original values of America. So who is an American? Does Obama represent the values, traditions and political forms of America? Well, neither did Lincoln.

Jefferson was concerned about "creeping Federalism" and so were the people of the Confederacy. Well, Federalism has more than crept, it has taken over the hearts, souls and lives of the citizens. It has spread it's insidious poison everywhere. It has robbed what once were free people of many of their basic freedoms and liberty. America today is not the America of Washington, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson. My family came to Virginia is 1619 and shed their blood in the War of Independence. I don't think they would shed their blood for Obama's America.

So, the question remains...just who is an American. It is a citizenship document or a set of values and principals?

God bless Texas!

[DCP]

I like most of what you have said Char Gar with the exception of this,

Booth was a traitor because the South lost and the winners said he was.

Now the Great General Robert E. Lee was loyal to Virginia. Virginia to the CSA.
Lee was one of the Greatest Men this Nation has seen. He was a Honorable Man.


Thanks for the great posts

[troyboy]

Like it or not Texas is a state in the United States of America. Just one of 50 no more or less.

[Char-Gar]

Yes, the winners get to decide who is what. Deciding is a patriot and who is a traitor, is just one of the winner's prerogatives. Lincoln got shot and he became "one for the ages" beloved by all the people of the north and sanitized by the books they wrote. Booth gets to be a dirty treasonous assassin, or so they say.

Had the ball taken a different bounce, the labels would be reversed.

[Char-Gar]

Like it or not Texas is a state in the United States of America. Just one of 50 no more or less.

I would not advise coming to Texas with that written on the side of your car.

[troyboy]

Most I've seen in your great state speak english as a second language. No worries here.

[texaswoodworker]

Like it or not Texas is a state in the United States of America. Just one of 50 no more or less.

Like it or not, many Texans are loyal to their state first, me included. Why wouldn't I be? The State of Texas does more to protect our freedom than the Federal Government does. The Federal Government is constantly attacking our rights, but the Texas State Government is protecting those rights. Every year, more laws are added to the law books in Texas that expand and protect our rights. So why would I be more loyal to the USA than the State of Texas? Texas is more American than America as a whole is!

We're called the Lone Star State for a reason. Independent additudes and loyalty to our great state is widespread among the people here. Unless you've lived here for an extended period of time, I do not expect you to understand this.

[texaswoodworker]

Most I've seen in your great state speak english as a second language. No worries here.

1. That's an outright lie. Many here speak Spanish as a SECOND language, but the overwhelming vast majority of the state speaks English as a FIRST language.

2. Didn't your state vote for Obama in 2008 AND 2012?

[Char-Gar]

Most I've seen in your great state speak english as a second language. No worries here.

Estaba bien con nosotros. Quedate donde estas. Su insultos y racismo no tiene effecto aqui in Tejas.

[troyboy]

Texas is one of 50. No more no less.

[texaswoodworker]

Texas is one of 50. No more no less.

Well, that's your opinion, and opinions are like azzholes. Everyone has one. Tell a Texan that, and they'll have an opinion about you.

[texaswoodworker]

Estaba bien con nosotros. Quedate donde estas. Su insultos y racismo no tiene effecto aqui in Tejas.

I agree.

[dragon813gt]

Carrying grudges this long is why things never change. I can say this w/ a straight face because my family was not here until the 1920s. They came over just in time for the Great Depression. The fact that some of you seem to think people are a certain way because of where they live is another reason things don't change. It doesn't matter because corrupt people are corrupt. Elected officials were bought and paid for back then just as they are now. Keeping ordinary citizens divided weakens all of us. You'd think some of you older fellas would realize this.

[texaswoodworker]

Carrying grudges this long is why things never change. I can say this w/ a straight face because my family was not here until the 1920s. They came over just in time for the Great Depression. The fact that some of you seem to think people are a certain way because of where they live is another reason things don't change. It doesn't matter because corrupt people are corrupt. Elected officials were bought and paid for back then just as they are now. Keeping ordinary citizens divided weakens all of us. You'd think some of you older fellas would realize this.

Considering that the results of the Civil War are still causing problems today, and that the people of one state are in fact different from the people of another state in some cases (Do you really think people in California think and act the same way as people in Texas?), I'd say your wrong.

As for holding grudges preventing anything from changing, forgetting about past crimes does nothing to bring about good changes. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[texaswoodworker]

Back to Lincoln.

1. Lincoln waged a war that cost the lives of 620,000 Americans. Including the murder of 50,000 innocent Southern civilians.

2. He arrested several thousand Marylanders suspected of Southern sympathies, including 30 members of the State legislature, a US Congressman representing Maryland, the mayor and police commissioner of Baltimore, and most of the Baltimore city council. These political detainees were imprisoned in Fort McHenry and Point Lookout without trial, in many cases, for several years.

3. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) without the consent of Congress (as required by the Constitution).

4. He illegally shut down and confiscated the printing presses of dozens of newspapers that had spoken out against him.

5. He re-instated and summarily promoted an Army officer who had been court martialed and cashiered by the US Army for war crimes.

6. Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.

7. Chief Justice Roger B Taney ruled that Lincolns actions were illegal, criminal and unconstitutional.

8. He invaded the South without the consent of Congress as required by the Constitution.

9. He blockaded Southern ports without a delclaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

10. He imprisoned without trial, hundreds of newspaper editors and owners and censored all newspaper and telegraph communication.

11. He created two new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Partys electoral vote.

12. He ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure his Parties victories.

13. The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.

14. He had his Generals attack US cities full of women and children and burn them to the ground.

15. Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him.

16. Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons.

17. April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.

18. Lincoln had all Southern sympathizers in Maryland jailed before they could vote for secession.

BTW, Booth was from Maryland.

[troyboy]

Like California is a state same as Ny or Tx or Va. We do not Murder our president because we disagree. This is the United States of America. Not a thing wrong with identifying and pride in the state you abide, but we are All citizens of the United States. The war between states was a tragedy that almost destroyed this great nation but none alive were a part

[dlbarr]

Carrying grudges this long is why things never change. I can say this w/ a straight face because my family was not here until the 1920s. They came over just in time for the Great Depression. The fact that some of you seem to think people are a certain way because of where they live is another reason things don't change. It doesn't matter because corrupt people are corrupt. Elected officials were bought and paid for back then just as they are now. Keeping ordinary citizens divided weakens all of us....

The voice of reason. Thank you.

I'm from the North. But I agree with my friends from the South: Lincoln was wrong.

Whenever it was that the War Between the States ended, how about we let it finally be over now?

[dragon813gt]

Learning from the past and holding grudges are two different things. The "south will rise again" mentality is holding a grudge. Of course we all feel strongly for the states we live in. But hating someone based on their location instead of their merit is foolish.

Of course there will be some differences in culture due to the size of the country. But people are more alike than you think. It's more of an urban versus rural thing than CA versus TX. The internet is making us all a more homogenous mixture every day. And it's on a worldwide scale.

I have no dog in the Lincoln is Good/Bad debate because it didn't effect my family of me. But I do know that none of us were there at the time so we have no first hand knowledge of what really happened. I can read five different books and get five different viewpoints.

[Thumbcocker]

Reconstruction was largely the result of a vindictive government after Lincoln's death. Lincoln had specified a number of times that he wanted to let the south up easy. When an army (Johnston or Beauregard I think) surrendered to Sherman proposed terms that were essentially go home stack your arms in your respective state armoris and get on with life. This was vetoed by die hard elements in Washington.

Stanton and Johnson then set about treating the south as an occupied zone
Johnston had been tread like carp by rich southern gentry and enjoyed making that group squirm. He granted many pardons to most who petitioned him in person. I do not believe reconstruction would have happened if Lincoln lived.

FWIW I had ancestors on both sides. There is a documented instance of a confederate veteran who settled in Ingerham Illinois, about 20 miles from my chair, and raised a family. His great great grandson does my taxes. He was a respected member of the community and is pictured in a group photo with local union veterans. They understood each other. I am sure a union veteran would have been equally welcome in Texas.

The war is still over. Tens of thousands of fine and brave men are still dead and no after the fact urination competition that does nothing but cause division and anger in a group of fine people who share common interests and hobbies can change that.

[DoubleAdobe]

The war of northern aggression is over in so far as formal hostilities have ceased. The real problems that led up to it mostly have not been solved and are exacerbated by most everything that has happened since. The tentacles slithering forth from the mire in foggy bottom are enslaving the citizenry. The loss of life, wellness and fulfillment was truly a great man-inspired tragedy.













































pretty daggum eloquent, sir. kudos

[smokeywolf]

So far I've only seen Northerners suggesting that the political and economic attacks by the North against the South, which precipitated the war between the States be forgiven and forgotten. I've not seen any southerners suggest that the crimes committed by Lincoln should be forgiven. This leads me to believe that it's much easier to preach "forgive and forget" as long as it wasn't your ancestors who were wronged.

As far as Texas being special; Texas is special! Texas has a unique history, but what really makes Texas special are Texans. More Texans have greater love and pride in their State than do the majority of the citizens of any other State. However, with Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Houston lost to liberals, I worry that Texas will eventually fall to the type of irresponsible freeloaders who vote demoncrat for the sole purpose of keeping the unearned, undeserved money and benefits coming to them.

smokeywolf

[bhn22]

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (in The Life of Reason, 1905)

[dlbarr]

So far I've only seen Northerners suggesting that the political and economic attacks by the North against the South, which precipitated the war between the States be forgiven and forgotten. I've not seen any southerners suggest that the crimes committed by Lincoln should be forgiven. This leads me to believe that it's much easier to preach "forgive and forget" as long as it wasn't your ancestors who were wronged.

smokeywolf

Smokey...yeah, you're right about that, but nobody that's alive here now is guilty of the atrocities mentioned. No, you don't have to let the argument die...you can keep it going. But what good does it do anybody?

[texaswoodworker]

Like California is a state same as Ny or Tx or Va. We do not Murder our president because we disagree. This is the United States of America. Not a thing wrong with identifying and pride in the state you abide, but we are All citizens of the United States. The war between states was a tragedy that almost destroyed this great nation but none alive were a part
California and New York are not the same as Texas. One look at the laws in those states will tell you that. We may all be part of the USA, but my loyalty goes to one that does more to protect my freedom. Considering we are in a constant battle for our rights against the feds, the one that does more to protect my rights is Texas. Like I said, you probably wouldn't understand the Texas mindset because you don't live here.

[texaswoodworker]

Learning from the past and holding grudges are two different things. The "south will rise again" mentality is holding a grudge. Of course we all feel strongly for the states we live in. But hating someone based on their location instead of their merit is foolish.

Of course there will be some differences in culture due to the size of the country. But people are more alike than you think. It's more of an urban versus rural thing than CA versus TX. The internet is making us all a more homogenous mixture every day. And it's on a worldwide scale.

I have no dog in the Lincoln is Good/Bad debate because it didn't effect my family of me. But I do know that none of us were there at the time so we have no first hand knowledge of what really happened. I can read five different books and get five different viewpoints.
I never said I hated anyone, well except Lincoln. As for being so homogeneous, why are there 50 states then instead of one borderless country? That would be because of differences between the people.

You speak as though everyone in the USA is the same. We're not. Every state has its own unique cultures and history that make them each different.

[Char-Gar]

Carrying grudges this long is why things never change. I can say this w/ a straight face because my family was not here until the 1920s. They came over just in time for the Great Depression. The fact that some of you seem to think people are a certain way because of where they live is another reason things don't change. It doesn't matter because corrupt people are corrupt. Elected officials were bought and paid for back then just as they are now. Keeping ordinary citizens divided weakens all of us. You'd think some of you older fellas would realize this.

There is a difference between a grudge and a grievance despite the fact both words begin in the letter G. Your family came here far to late to have any feelings about the War for Southern Independence. It is just a meaningless chapter in history book about a country in which you have only a recent experience.

With all due respect, I can't take your lectures about tolerance with any seriousness. It is easy to be tolerant when you have no skin in the game. When you have lost nothing and suffered nothing, then the event means nothing.

The people with long and deep roots in the South know how their families have suffered at the hands of the Union victors. We have ancestors buried in unmarked graves. We had had to put up with righteous platitudes and being told to get over it. That has a very hollow ring from folks who paid no price for their commitment to the American dream.

My family came here in 1619 and fought the French and Indians, the British twice, the Mexicans twice, the invading Union army, the Comanche, the Spanish, the Germans twice, the Italians and the Japanese to hold on to their country. I take the price they paid very seriously and will not dishonor their sacrifice because somebody wants me to "get over it". Nope injustice requires redress.

We have a nation of folks who seek nothing more but benefits and entitlements from the government. History and sacrifice have no meaning to them. They do not honor those who gave their all to create and sustain this country.

I hold no personal animus toward any living individual over the issue. But I will not tolerate people disrespecting those who went before them and paid a dear price to give them what they have now. I do forgive, but I will not forget.

We are not the same you and I. We do not share the same culture, history and values. If we did you would not be telling me to get over it and I have nothing but a grudge. I am far from being alone in these feelings as this thread indicate. So don't give me this we are all the same stuff.

The Jews refuse to forget the Holocaust even though many want them to. Stop talking about it, let's just forget it and go on. The Jews know that to not remember those who suffered and died is to dishonor them and to invite history to repeat itself.

I will not forget the horrible crimes of Lincoln for the same reasons. The war is indeed over, but I won't be told that the suffering it caused doesn't matter. It may not matter to you, but it matters very much to me. Such things should never be forgotten. Worship at the altar of St. Abe if you like, but don't expect me to join you in that temple.

[Duckiller]

My ancestors came to this Country prior to 1776 and settled in Virginia. Later they moved to Missouri,Randolph County. My great grandfather was in the confederate army and recieved wounds at Chattanooga that eventually proved to be fatal. Grandfather was born at the very beginning of the civil war. My father and all of his brothers and sisters were born in Missouri. They left Missouri after WWI for Michigan because they couldn't make a living there. Jesse James et.al. were hero’s to my father and his brothers. Much to the amusement of his children my grandfather stopped voting when FDR ran for a 3rd term. Three term presidents were wrong and after voting Democrat for 60 years he could not vote for a Republican. My paternal grand parents and my father and all of his siblings would tell you that the south fired the first shots of the civil war. They may have been forced into it but they did fire the first shot so technically they started the civil war. The war ended in 1865. My family would disown me if I had posted some of the things posted here.
I would never brag about being from Texas. Drove across the state in 2010 on Interstate 10 and 20. Don't know how they got away with it but your highway department has off ramps that discharge traffic into oncoming traffic. Is this a way to control your population? My opinion of the pride some of you have in bieing from Texas would get me banned for life so I will stop now.

[texaswoodworker]

My ancestors came to this Country prior to 1776 and settled in Virginia. Later they moved to Missouri,Randolph County. My great grandfather was in the confederate army and recieved wounds at Chattanooga that eventually proved to be fatal. Grandfather was born at the very beginning of the civil war. My father and all of his brothers and sisters were born in Missouri. They left Missouri after WWI for Michigan because they couldn't make a living there. Jesse James et.al. were hero’s to my father and his brothers. Much to the amusement of his children my grandfather stopped voting when FDR ran for a 3rd term. Three term presidents were wrong and after voting Democrat for 60 years he could not vote for a Republican. My paternal grand parents and my father and all of his siblings would tell you that the south fired the first shots of the civil war. They may have been forced into it but they did fire the first shot so technically they started the civil war. The war ended in 1865. My family would disown me if I had posted some of the things posted here.
I would never brag about being from Texas. Drove across the state in 2010 on Interstate 10 and 20. Don't know how they got away with it but your highway department has off ramps that discharge traffic into oncoming traffic. Is this a way to control your population? My opinion of the pride some of you have in bieing from Texas would get me banned for life so I will stop now.

Never seen those ramps.

As for you not liking how we love our state, get over it. In case you haven't notice, we have a heck of an independence streak and we do things our way. Don't like that? Feel free to stay out.

[Handloader109]

It isn't just the Lone Star State either...... Grew up near Vicksburg MS. It was over a hundred years after the fact that the city actually celebrated Independence Day......Vicksburg fell to the invading Union army on July 4........

[Thumbcocker]

It was over a hundred years after the fact that the city actually celebrated Independence Day...... And the irony is that a majority of the citizens of Vicksburg had voted against secession.

[bhn22]

You can't get under a Texans skin like that. The majority of them would simply ask God to bless your heart, and then they'd go back to what they were doing. :D

[DCP]

You can't get under a Texans skin like that. The majority of them would simply ask God to bless your heart, and then they'd go back to what they were doing. :D

Now this is funny, if you read between the lines

[Char-Gar]

Duckiller...I have been driving the Interstate Highway system in Texas for many years and have never seen such a ramp. Being the "Interstate Highway" highway system, these are built to Federal standards and are not significantly different from such highways in other states. To take a off ramp into oncoming traffic you will have to be driving the wrong way. Is that what happened? Being from Missouri I guess that is possible, bless your heart.

Texans are used to the jealousy and envy of others, particularly those from Arkansas and Missouri. I have heard all my life that most folks who came to Texas passed through those states. Those who can read came onto Texas and the rest stayed in Arkansas and Missouri.

You seem to have gone native in Yankeeland since your family made the move. It doesn't take but a generation or two to loose heritage and take on the values and thinking of those around you. That is why it is important to understand your culture and roots and stay there. My family came to Texas in 1842 when it was the Republic of Texas and have stayed here during all the twists and turns of Texas history. We are here for the long haul and don't much care what Yankees and other foreigners think of us.

[wch]

I wrote to the Republican National Committee suggesting that they lose the elephant symbol and use a picture of President Lincoln's statue, the one of him sitting in the memorial in DC.
The Democrats keep trying to steal Lincoln's legacy and this would forestall that nonsense.

[DoubleAdobe]

School is in session, Professor Graff will be taking you to school today.:kidding:
Go, Charles.

[Char-Gar]

I wrote to the Republican National Committee suggesting that they lose the elephant symbol and use a picture of President Lincoln's statue, the one of him sitting in the memorial in DC.
The Democrats keep trying to steal Lincoln's legacy and this would forestall that nonsense.

If you do an analysis of Republican and Democrat policy issues of 1860 and 2015 you will find they pretty much have switched. So if the Democrats want Lincoln, they can have him. They are closer to him now than the current Republicans. The Tea Party wing are darn near Confederates if you consider the policy.

[Lonegun1894]

Killing the president of these united states is an act of treason. Right or wrong this is a nation of laws. Right or wrong he was still the elected president. Booth was no hero and to think of him as such is totaly out of the realm of comprehnsion. None alive today were then so whatever side you choose to abide is the version you choose.

Booth didn't kill the president of his Country because the South had seceded and was in fact it's own sovereign nation. What Booth did was kill the president of an enemy nation which had invaded his Country. That is no more a crime than shooting an enemy soldier in combat. If a snake threatens you and your loved ones, do you cut off the tip of the tail and hope it learns it's lesson, or do you cut off the head? Booth did absolutely nothing wrong. It would have been treason if he had killed HIS OWN president, but killing someone elses in time of war is an act of patriotism and doing a soldiers duty. It is NOT treason, no matter how much some Yankee thinks it should be.

[DCP]

Booth didn't kill the president of his Country because the South had seceded and was in fact it's own sovereign nation. What Booth did was kill the president of an enemy nation which had invaded his Country. That is no more a crime than shooting an enemy soldier in combat. If a snake threatens you and your loved ones, do you cut off the tip of the tail and hope it learns it's lesson, or do you cut off the head? Booth did absolutely nothing wrong. It would have been treason if he had killed HIS OWN president, but killing someone elses in time of war is an act of patriotism and doing a soldiers duty. It is NOT treason, no matter how much some Yankee thinks it should be.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

Each state had declared its secession from the United States following the November 1860 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860) of Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) candidate Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) to the U.S. presidency on a platform which opposed the expansion of slavery. A new Confederate government was proclaimed in February 1861 before Lincoln took office in March, but was considered illegal by the government of the United States. After war began in April, four states of the Upper South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_South) also declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted Missouri and Kentucky as members, although neither officially declared secession nor were they ever controlled by Confederate forces.
The government of the United States (the Union) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) rejected the claims of secession and considered the Confederacy to be illegitimate. The American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) began with the April 12, 1861 Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter), a Union fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston,_South_Carolina). By 1865, after very heavy fighting, largely on Confederate territory, C.S. forces all surrendered and the Confederacy vanished. No sovereign foreign state officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-history-state-gov-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-McPherson-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-Thomas256-3) although the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) and France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_Empire) granted it belligerent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent) status. While the war lacked a formal end, Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) later lamented that the Confederacy had "disappeared" in 1865.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-5)

[DCP]

Booth was a traitor he killed his President the war was over April 9 1865 and CSA didn't exist.
You just cant change some facts. He was to late.

[BrentD]

For some of the folks here The War, has never been over.

This reinvention of the South and historical revisioning is just about the most ridiculous and anti-American thing I've seen in the last 10-15 yrs.

[texaswoodworker]

For some of the folks here The War, has never been over.

This reinvention of the South and historical revisioning is just about the most ridiculous and anti-American thing I've seen in the last 10-15 yrs.

So the trampling of the Constitution, needless death of 650,000 people (50,000 of which were innocent Southern civilians) for greed, and the oppression of Soother people and the destruction of the Southern economy for the next 100 years was American? Sounds like the very things this country was founded against.

Those who claim our views are anti American might want to go reread some history because they have obviously forgotten the very principals this country was founded on.

[jmort]

The Confederate States should have been allowed to secede from the Union. Not allowing secession, that was the worst possible result and precedent that we are now stuck with. As to the balance, and as a Southern Sympathizer, I look at the score-board, the North won and the South lost, unfortunately. Game over. A divided United States would have been far better that what we have now.

[dlbarr]

For some of the folks here The War, has never been over.



Clearly, that is the case. Though I have never lived in the south, nor did any of my ancestors, and I would not presume to understand the loss felt & incurred by my southern countrymen, what good does this verbal & emotional battle do for the South?

As a Northerner, I agree with your summation on the right & wrong of the conflict. Truth is, there is enough blame to go around. As to history's view of Lincoln, I offer the following contradiction:

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3181

Remember the Hatfields & McCoys? That private battle ended sometime before 1900, I believe. I also understand that the H&M families signed a symbolic peace agreement around 2005(+/-). Perhaps we, N&S, could symbolically agree to be at peace with one another? As near as I know, nobody is taking advantage of the South any longer. It may well have been better to have 2 countries instead of one. But since that didn't happen, how about we stop going for each other's throats?

All that accomplishes nothing anyway, except more angst.

[Char-Gar]

Booth was a traitor he killed his President the war was over April 9 1865 and CSA didn't exist.
You just cant change some facts. He was to late.

No you can't change facts and here they are. May 12, I will be offering a prayer at the 150th commemoration of the Battle of Palmito Ranch here in Deep South Texas. That was one month after Booth put a ball into the back of the tyrant Lincolns head. Lee was the first to surrender, but he was not the last. You really do need to spend some time with some history books, so you won't look so ill informed. You didn't learn it all in 9th grade.

The Army of Northern Virginia surrendered on April 9 around noon followed by General St. John Richardson Liddell's troops some six hours later.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-harrell390-2) Mosby's raiders disbanded on April 21, General Joseph E. Johnston and his various armies surrendered on April 26, the Confederate departments of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana surrendered on May 4, and the Confederate District of the Gulf, commanded by Major General Dabney Herndon Maury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabney_H._Maury), surrendered on May 5.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-Davis307-3)Confederate President Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) was captured on May 10 and the Confederate Departments of Florida and South Georgia, commanded by Confederate Major General Samuel Jones, surrendered the same day.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-korn160-4) Thompson's Brigade surrendered on May 11, Confederate forces of North Georgia surrendered on May 12, and Kirby Smith surrendered on May 26 (officially signed June 2).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-uswd-5) The last battle of the American Civil War was the Battle of Palmito Ranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmito_Ranch) in Texas on May 12 and 13. The last significant Confederate active force to surrender was the Confederate allied Cherokee Brigadier General Stand Watie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie) and his Indian soldiers on June 23. The last Confederate surrender occurred on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Shenandoah)surrendered at Liverpool, England.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-6) President Andrew Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson) formally declared the end of the war on August 20, 1866.

[Char-Gar]

For some of the folks here The War, has never been over.

This reinvention of the South and historical revisioning is just about the most ridiculous and anti-American thing I've seen in the last 10-15 yrs.

The shooting war is over, but the cultural war is not. People like you try and rob the South of it's heroes and heritage. The instances are numerous and are increasing in number and not decreasing as time goes forward.

The latest is the student government at the Univ. of Texas at Austin want the statute of Jefferson Davis removed from the campus.

If the war is indeed over, then quite trying to punish us. As long at Yankee and political correct types try and destroy our culture and heritage, we will resist. If you want the war to be truly over, then cease your denigration of our history. Then and only then, it will be over. If you want unity, that will cost you respect. Calling us Anti-American is not a step in the right direction.

[BrentD]

CG, your sense of persecution is at odds with reality. Quit making excuses and get on with your life - take some responsbility. No one is punishing you, or denigrating history. No one is going to stand by and let you rewrite it either. And it is not YOUR history. It is OUR history, and therein lies your problem.

[Char-Gar]

Remember the Hatfields & McCoys? That private battle ended sometime before 1900, I believe. I also understand that the H&M families signed a symbolic peace agreement around 2005(+/-). Perhaps we, N&S, could symbolically agree to be at peace with one another? As near as I know, nobody is taking advantage of the South any longer. It may well have been better to have 2 countries instead of one. But since that didn't happen, how about we stop going for each other's throats?

All that accomplishes nothing anyway, except more angst.[/QUOTE]

For your answer see my post above..

[sundog]

It's only OUR history if ALL of it is recorded. ALL OF IT.

[Char-Gar]

CG, your sense of persecution is at odds with reality. Quit making excuses and get on with your life - take some responsbility. No one is punishing you, or denigrating history. No one is going to stand by and let you rewrite it either. And it is not YOUR history. It is OUR history, and therein lies your problem.

You sir, are either ill informed or willfully ignorant. The list of Confederate Heritage violations run into the hundreds in just the past ten years. I don't know who you are, where you live, and what your family did or didn't do, but clearly we do not share the same history nor do we share any kind of kinship other than citizenship in the same country. You attitude is the root cause that the divisions still exists.

Again, you are not my kind of man, and you are not entitled to tell me what my history is and what it means to me or millions of other people from the South. You do not have that right to rewrite my history and modify my culture.

I am taking responsibility and part of that responsibility is to oppose you and all that you stand for. I will deny and decry attempt to rape our culture anywhere and everywhere I can. So you pious admonitions to get over it and get on with life only fuel the fires of division.

[1Shirt]

History is what it is! That said, without the actions taken by Lincoln, there would be no United States today. Lincoln did not start the war, South Carolina did. He violated the constitution in numerous ways, but for the good of the nation. Sure can't say that about Obama.
1Shirt~

[jmort]

I believe we would be better off with a divided nation. States should allowed to walk

[Charley]

Had no idea so many do have knowledge of Lincoln's depredations concerning the US Constitution. The adage, "history is written by the victors" is absolutely true. My mother's paternal relatives came to Texas from Alabama, sometime in the 1890's. I've mentioned that to some, and get the response, "Well, they obviously were slave owners, no wonder you believe as you do". My relatives, except for one great, great uncle who was an MD, were poor sharecroppers. Slaves? Geez, they were lucky to own shoes!

[dlbarr]

For your answer see my post above..

CG, I can see your point, to a point. I felt much the same when they removed the Ten Commandments from that courthouse in I can't remember where. I doesn't change the truth at all. But it does, I agree, change the expression of the truth and of the things we hold dear. In my mind, it's important to consider hard who it is we consider as "enemies". I'm guessing that most of us here have more in common than not. We're probably better together, that's all.

Your ceremony in May....is there website that has or will have a recording of that? Be interested to see it myself.

[Char-Gar]

History is what it is! That said, without the actions taken by Lincoln, there would be no United States today. Lincoln did not start the war, South Carolina did. He violated the constitution in numerous ways, but for the good of the nation. Sure can't say that about Obama.
1Shirt~

Just a couple of responses;

1. South Carolina was not longer part of the United State and yet it had an armed fort occupied by another nation commanding it's principal city and harbor. These same armed people refused to leave. If you had armed people sitting in your front lawn and refusing to leave, what would you do. Oh yes, call the cops. Well that is what South Carolina did.

2. Lincoln shredded the Constitution for what he felt was the greater good. Obama is also shredding the Constitution for what he feels in the greater good and millions of people agree with him. Why is one good and the other bad? It just may be that 150 years from now, people will be singing Obama's praises for what it did.

[Char-Gar]

CG, I can see your point, to a point. I felt much the same when they removed the Ten Commandments from that courthouse in I can't remember where. I doesn't change the truth at all. But it does, I agree, change the expression of the truth and of the things we hold dear. In my mind, it's important to consider hard who it is we consider as "enemies". I'm guessing that most of us here have more in common than not. We're probably better together, that's all.

Your ceremony in May....is there website that has or will have a recording of that? Be interested to see it myself.

I will have to check on the website. We had planned a reenactment of the battle complete with Union forces landing from the sea and Confederate cavalry opposing them. However the US Fish and Wildlife Service which own the land on which the battle took place would not give us access. We asked the County to allow us to use some land nearby that belonged to them, but they never gave us an answer nor even replied.

So we are left to just have a commemoration service on private land. The forces that want to ignore Confederate history are very strong. A few years ago, we placed Confederate flags on the graves of Confederate soldier but three black folks objected and the city workers pulled them up. This was done on Confederate memorial day which is a state holiday. Some of the liberal folks in the Texas legislature has now filed a bill to remove that as a state holiday.

It would seem that everybody has rights in the country, except the folks who want to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. The headwinds caused by political correctness are about to destroy us and all that we hold dear.

If people would just allow us to celebrate our heritage and our dead ancestors, we could stand down. However there is a massive push to label the Confederate cause as evil and fought just to own slaves. This of course is not true and that forces us to resist aggressively. I think we will ultimately lose, but if they can take our heritage they can take yours as well.

I note that just last week, the feminists have labeled the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as "sexists". The process of destroying America is insidious and determined. First they consume Confederate heritage and then they consume your heritage. Your ancestors will be labeled sexist and racist and capitalists and then they will become evil also. Then they will start to pull down your memorials and statutes and rename your parks and streets after civil rights leaders and Marxist icons.

So, the folks that stand by and clap as Confederate Heritage is destroyed and tell us to get over it and get on with need, need to step back and realize they are next in line. We are just the low hanging fruit. I am neither paranoid, nor a conspiracy buff, but there is so much hard evidence around that forces me to come to the conclusion that there are real attempt afoot to destroy traditional American values and culture. When that is gone, so also will America be gone.

There is allot more here for all of us than "Why can't we just all get along"..Rodney King.

[dlbarr]

..... actions taken by Lincoln......violated the constitution in numerous ways, but for the good of the nation....


Have a little problem with one....how is breaking the Law of the Land "good" for that Land?

If the only good result was the preservation of the entire "union", then I guess that's how you come to such a conclusion. But one of the original founders, Jefferson, didn't think the union was sacred. If a State wanted to leave, they should be able to in his opinion. He was probably a higher thinker on these matters than most of us here, I'm guessing.

Not looking to throw down on anybody, but I'm interested in the rationale behind statements made....

[Duckiller]

The Confederate States of America never existed as a nation except in the misguided minds of people in open rebellion to the LEGAL government of the United States. Because they called themselves a nation doesn't make them a nation. No other nation ever recognized them as a nation. They were rebels who lost the fight. Their local education system is still badly lacking witness some of the posts on this thread. Texas is a bad joke. It probably should be divided into several states to give Obama his 56 states (education in some northern states is not very good either).
Freeway off ramps. Texas has surface streets that parallel freeways. The off ramps discharge parallel onto these surface streets. Off ramps in the other 45 states that I have visited discharge perpendicular to the surface street. I am suspicious that LBJ helped Texas get a cheap off ramp approved. Does Texas still allow open containers and drunk driving?

[Duckiller]

Secession is not in the Constitution. Jefferson may have thought it was ok to leave but a majority of his fellow founding fathers didn't.

[DCP]

Lee surrender Basically end the war on April 9
Do not insult me by telling me I dont know my History.
Sure there were battles after that day.
I guess they couldn't get anyone to answer there cells phones.

Booth knew the war was over.

Char-gar you said some very good things here, but you digress.
The war could have continue for years with gorilla fighting.
The Great General Lee wanted and fought for lasting peace.

[dlbarr]

..... Jefferson may have thought it was ok to leave but a majority of his fellow founding fathers didn't.

Would be interested in the documentation that verifies that.

Not saying it's not so, but seems a bit strange that the men that thought it was OK to leave a country would think it not OK to leave another. Or that it is OK for one group of people to leave, but not OK for another group.

Anyway, open to seeing the proof of your statement or at least some evidence.


Also, the statement doesn't answer the bigger question posed earlier: the validity of violating the Constitution.

[RoyEllis]

The Confederate States of America never existed as a nation except in the misguided minds of people in open rebellion...... Because they called themselves a nation doesn't make them a nation. No other nation ever recognized them as a nation. They were rebels .........

Your logic is totally flawed, the same could be said of those who founded this nation and struggled to declare & enforce it's independence, particularly had the colonies lost the war.
By the way, your vile diatribe against Texas is uncalled for as well as skirting dangerously close to violating forum terms of service, specifically
"4) WE RESERVE THE RIGHT to refuse access to anyone that promotes undesirable attitudes, is adversarial towards the members/moderators/admins or is just generally socially unacceptable."

[bhn22]

Well, hopefully our next Civil War will end better.

[Char-Gar]

Lee surrender Basically end the war on April 9
Do not insult me by telling me I dont know my History.
Sure there were battles after that day.
I guess they couldn't get anyone to answer there cells phones.

Booth knew the war was over.

Char-gar you said some very good things here, but you digress.
The war could have continue for years with gorilla fighting.
The Great General Lee wanted and fought for lasting peace.

If there is no total surrender by a government, when is a war over? All Lee did was surrender his army, and nothing more. It was a piece meal victory by the Yankees. When you stated that the war was over when Lee surrender, that is just not true. It was not my intent to insult you but to correct you. The war was not over when Booth shot Lincoln, which was your assertion. That is just plain fact, whether you like it or now, and whether you are insulted or not.

There was guerrilla warfare for years after the way. Texas history is replete with armed encounters between Texans and Federal occupying forces. Other Southern states experience the same thing. Federal occupying troops were not embraced as bother and friend, but as an occupying enemy.

Many Confederate moved to Mexico and some to Brazil hopping to come back at some point in time. The James brother saw themselves as continuing the fight.

A few years after his surrender and looking at what destruction the Union was bringing to the South. Lee said, he would not have surrendered his sword, if he knew such a thing would happen. Lee felt he was betrayed.

[dilly]

I believe we would be better off with a divided nation. States should allowed to walk

Most relationships are defined by mutual consent. If your employee has the ability to leave if he or she feels abused, it's an employee. If that right is denied by force, that employee is a slave. If your wife has the ability to leave, that makes her your wife. If not, that makes her something else; kept woman, concubine, or again slave, etc.

In some ways it's really not that appropriate to use the word "state."

[Char-Gar]

Jefferson and his circle of friends, consider the Constitution to be based on the "Compact Theory". This mean that the union was a compact for mutual benefit between sovereign states which did not give up their sovereignty to receive the benefits.

The Constitution provided a way for new states to join, but was silent on ways for existing states to leave. In the early 1800s some NE states threaten to succeed, but never carried through. It was not until 1861 until some states actually did succeed and they relied on the Compact Theory for their legal framework.

Lincoln under pressure from northern industrial big wigs, took it upon himself to decide that states could not succeed. He created the fiction, that the states had been taken over by some rebellious types and they did not represent the will of the states. The states did not succeed, they have just fallen into the hand of some outlaws. Texas at least, had a state wide referendum vote on succession, so that is nonsense.

Lincoln on his own powers sent an army of millions into the South to force their capitulation. Over 600,000 died and many more maimed because of Lincoln's decision. Add to that economic and social destruction of the South that lasted 100 years. All of this because Lincoln decided to take action on a matter that was not spoken of in the Constitution. The Civil War was truly Lincoln's war. He owns it and all the consequences that go along with that.

Folks who say that Lincoln had Constitutional authority to wage such a war, either do not know the Constitution, nor history. There is a knee jerk reaction on the behalf of many millions to glorify and deify Lincoln and therefore assume he acted with full Constitutional authority and a heart full of love for the poor benighted darkies. Lincoln was a war criminal of the highest order, who waged war without authority on those who had once been a part of his country. He shredding the Constitution right and left in the process.

It is true that the winners get to write the history books and after generations, people don't even question what they, their parents, their grandparent and great grandparents were taught. We see folks here on this thread who swallowed the cover-up and hook, line and sinker.

By force of arms the Southern states were compelled to be subjugated to a government not of their choosing. A government who brought 100 years of economic and social destruction on them. Now the descendant of the conquerors tell us to get over it and get on with life. Will it ever end?

From Occupied Texas...I am Charles Graff

[HarryT]

If this comes to blows, I'm siding with Texas!

[Char-Gar]

Most relationships are defined by mutual consent. If your employee has the ability to leave if he or she feels abused, it's an employee. If that right is denied by force, that employee is a slave. If your wife has the ability to leave, that makes her your wife. If not, that makes her something else; kept woman, concubine, or again slave, etc.

In some ways it's really not that appropriate to use the word "state."

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina are not a part of this country by mutual consent. They are here only by right of conquest.

[DCP]

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina are not a part of this country by mutual consent. They are here only by right of conquest.

Try this

70x7

[Char-Gar]

If this comes to blows, I'm siding with Texas!

That is only fair, because Texas sided with South Carolina in 1861. There was a period of time between when Texas seceded and when they joined the Confederacy, and there was much debate as to whether to establish the Republic of Texas or join the Confederate State of America. In the end, Texas decided to throw in the Confederate states as that is where they had their roots, friends and families. Texas would not turn their back on this friends and family in their time of need.

Texas would have been far better off had they not joined the Confederacy, but we don't get a do over on that decision. Although if Texas independence were put to a vote, it just might win.

[MUSTANG]

Char Gar - "God Bless Texas" from a transplanted wandering Texan. I have seen nothing from your posts that is not 100% historically accurate despite the opinions of several. Note I said opinions of others as opposed to historical fact that you have brought forward and been dismissed by a few.

The crux of the issue in discussion is the actions of Lincoln in direct and knowing disregard to the Constitution and his Oath of Office. The generational wounds of the Civil War have not disappeared and are still felt by the descendents of "Reconstruction" and "Occupation" by force (Blue Coats and Carpet Baggers) that occurred Post Civil War are real and still remain for those whose parents, grandparents, and great grandparents passed on the real stories to their Children/Grand Children/Great Grandchildren. I learned history that many here missed because of mandatory "Texas History" in Texas schools I attended. These were factually based history lessons and have been validated over my life as I have continued to study history, not an indoctrination by Academia that seems to prevail in our Nations Education system now.

In my opinion, this should be a lesson for today. The non-Constitutional actions of what I call the "Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Communist" agenda found in many elected officials will result in the same generational wounds for a portion of our population. It will not be a regional issue this time (although it may be focused on Metroplex vs. Small Town/Rural"), rather it will be a division between those who embrace Freedom and Liberty as described by our Founding Fathers and our Republic's Constitution; and those who advocate for Collectivism/Federalism/Social responsibility/Income Equality. The difference is one of education to historical and scientific fact Vs. those who "Feel" and "Want". Char Gar and others have attempted to engage the conversation based on "Fact" which has resulted in some responding with "Feeling".

[Char-Gar]

Errata. I do know the difference between secede and succeed, I just can't remember how to spell them. Spelling has never been my long suit and auto correct is my worse enema.

[Char-Gar]

Well said Mustang. There is indeed a great lesson here for all. History is repeating itself in terms of abuse of the Constitution. If we can't learn from the lessons from the first round of Constitutional abuse at the hand of Lincoln, then we will surely learn from the hands of Obama and his fellows in arms.

I am far more concerned about the enemy within, than the enemy without (ISIS etc.). If we are destroyed it will be due to a slow and insidious attack on our freedom, liberty and Constitution.

[texaswoodworker]

Lee surrender Basically end the war on April 9
Do not insult me by telling me I dont know my History.
Sure there were battles after that day.
I guess they couldn't get anyone to answer there cells phones.

Booth knew the war was over.

Char-gar you said some very good things here, but you digress.
The war could have continue for years with gorilla fighting.
The Great General Lee wanted and fought for lasting peace.

The war was not officially over until 1866. It doesn't matter if Lee surrendered before then. Bullets were still flying, battles were still being fought, and brave Southerners were still fighting and dying for their freedom. I call that war.

[Hogtamer]

The Bonnie Blue Flag
1. We are a band of brothers and native to the soil


Fighting for the property we gained by honest toil[a]
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!
Chorus:


Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
2. As long as the Union was faithful to her trust


Like friends and like brethren, kind were we, and just
But now, when Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus


3. First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand


Then came Alabama and took her by the hand
Next, quickly Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida
All raised on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus


4. Ye men of valor gather round the banner of the right


Texas and fair Louisiana join us in the fight
Davis, our loved President, and Stephens statesmen rare
Now rally round the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus


5. Now here's to brave Virginia, the Old Dominion State,


With the young Confederacy at last has sealed her fate,
And spurred by her example, now other states prepare
To hoist high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus[4]


6. Then cheer, boys, cheer, raise a joyous shout


For Arkansas and North Carolina now have both gone out,
And let another rousing cheer for Tennessee be given,
The single star of the Bonnie Blue Flag has grown to be eleven.
Chorus


7. Then here's to our Confederacy, strong we are and brave,


Like patriots of old we'll fight, our heritage to save;
And rather than submit to shame, to die we would prefer,
So cheer for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus[5]

[dlbarr]

There is allot more here for all of us than "Why can't we just all get along"..Rodney King.

CG, I'm not saying that and I think you pretty well know it. What I am saying is that the people on this forum, and in particular on this thread, who disagree on the principle issues of the WBS, are not in the same class as these people:

"..the feminists have labeled the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as "sexists". The process of destroying America is insidious and determined. First they consume Confederate heritage and then they consume your heritage. Your ancestors will be labeled sexist and racist and capitalists and then they will become evil also. Then they will start to pull down your memorials and statutes and rename your parks and streets after civil rights leaders and Marxist icons."

This bunch, of course, is a real enemy to our freedoms. And they've been on the attack for a long time. Them calling my heritage & way of life "evil" is not new. My point is that, while we may disagree (vehemently) on some things that are of great value to us personally, I imagine that the folks here ALL share a value for our basic American freedom and we ought to stick together on that. You're right: some folks' freedoms have been taken advantage of more than others. We still better learn to stand together because, in my opinion, there ain't enough of US as it is!

[Handloader109]

I will have to check on the website. We had planned a reenactment of the battle complete with Union forces landing from the sea and Confederate cavalry opposing them. However the US Fish and Wildlife Service which own the land on which the battle took place would not give us access. We asked the County to allow us to use some land nearby that belonged to them, but they never gave us an answer nor even replied.

So we are left to just have a commemoration service on private land. The forces that want to ignore Confederate history are very strong. A few years ago, we placed Confederate flags on the graves of Confederate soldier but three black folks objected and the city workers pulled them up. This was done on Confederate memorial day which is a state holiday. Some of the liberal folks in the Texas legislature has now filed a bill to remove that as a state holiday.

It would seem that everybody has rights in the country, except the folks who want to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. The headwinds caused by political correctness are about to destroy us and all that we hold dear.

If people would just allow us to celebrate our heritage and our dead ancestors, we could stand down. However there is a massive push to label the Confederate cause as evil and fought just to own slaves. This of course is not true and that forces us to resist aggressively. I think we will ultimately lose, but if they can take our heritage they can take yours as well.

I note that just last week, the feminists have labeled the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as "sexists". The process of destroying America is insidious and determined. First they consume Confederate heritage and then they consume your heritage. Your ancestors will be labeled sexist and racist and capitalists and then they will become evil also. Then they will start to pull down your memorials and statutes and rename your parks and streets after civil rights leaders and Marxist icons.

So, the folks that stand by and clap as Confederate Heritage is destroyed and tell us to get over it and get on with need, need to step back and realize they are next in line. We are just the low hanging fruit. I am neither paranoid, nor a conspiracy buff, but there is so much hard evidence around that forces me to come to the conclusion that there are real attempt afoot to destroy traditional American values and culture. When that is gone, so also will America be gone.

There is allot more here for all of us than "Why can't we just all get along"..Rodney King.
Well said and totally accurate. Anyone see the push to get Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill?
Has to be a female! Change our attitudes and remove history. University of Mississippi removed a mascot that was " insensitive " a coupons of years ago. really? Removing statues is an ongoing and very real way to change history. Replace names of airports and streets. Happens every day. Wrong, but hard to stop. Revisionists are everywhere.

[Hamish]

Good Lord above, sometimes it's plumb depressing being a Southern man living amidst all this mess,,,m,m,m,,,,,

This morning, a wonderful woman I go to church with who we love to death, but bless her good Christian heart, she's a university town liberal, she posted a link on her Facebook page about one of the local politicians writing about "the great man".

I have had to force myself to go sort of schizophrenic around her and others like her,,,,,,,(can't be dressing down and education up the mother in law of the associate pastor, now can we,,,,,)

I view Lincoln very much like I view the pinkomuzzynancyboy.

[dtknowles]

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina are not a part of this country by mutual consent. They are here only by right of conquest.

At that point in history that was an acceptable practice. Some other small parts of this country were acquired in a similar manner. I can understand the Texans being a bit miffed about being conquered. Does anyone dispute that the North won and put their people in power to subjugate the South. The South was too weak to defend their independence. That way of life and legacy is now just a memory, I don't have a problem with the celebrating it if they want too.

Booth was a spy and assassin and got what he deserved. It would have been different if he was in uniform and a soldier.

Tim

[Thumbcocker]

Lee said, he would not have surrendered his sword, if he knew such a thing would happen

Lee did not surrender his sword. Grant added a term to the terms of surrender that allowed officers to retain their side arms to spare him the embarrassment of having to surrender his sword. Lee had brought his ornate ceremonial sword in anticipation of having to surrender it. Two men who knew the meaning of class.

[Charley]

If there is no total surrender by a government, when is a war over? All Lee did was surrender his army, and nothing more. It was a piece meal victory by the Yankees. When you stated that the war was over when Lee surrender, that is just not true. It was not my intent to insult you but to correct you. The war was not over when Booth shot Lincoln, which was your assertion. That is just plain fact, whether you like it or now, and whether you are insulted or not.

There was guerrilla warfare for years after the way. Texas history is replete with armed encounters between Texans and Federal occupying forces. Other Southern states experience the same thing. Federal occupying troops were not embraced as bother and friend, but as an occupying enemy.

Many Confederate moved to Mexico and some to Brazil hopping to come back at some point in time. The James brother saw themselves as continuing the fight.

A few years after his surrender and looking at what destruction the Union was bringing to the South. Lee said, he would not have surrendered his sword, if he knew such a thing would happen. Lee felt he was betrayed.

One of my High School Spanish teachers introduced himself the first day of class... HUGE east Texas accent..."Ma name is Milfr'd Turner an' I can teach ya to speak Spanish like a native Mexican". He could, he spoke better Spanish than English, family was Mexican Confederate. They had lived and ranched in Mexico since 1865, some became US citizens in the 1940s-50s, but the family still had very strong ties with Mexico. Most also don't realize that here in Texas the laws concerning open and concealed carry of handguns was done by YANKEE reconstructionists in the state legislature, who wanted to keep concealed and openly carried handguns out of the hands of former Confederate soldiers, as well as others they considered "undesirable", like Blacks and Mexicanos. We are just now getting that mess straightened out.

[Char-Gar]

One of my High School Spanish teachers introduced himself the first day of class... HUGE east Texas accent..."Ma name is Milfr'd Turner an' I can teach ya to speak Spanish like a native Mexican". He could, he spoke better Spanish than English, family was Mexican Confederate. They had lived and ranched in Mexico since 1865, some became US citizens in the 1940s-50s, but the family still had very strong ties with Mexico. Most also don't realize that here in Texas the laws concerning open and concealed carry of handguns was done by YANKEE reconstructionists in the state legislature, who wanted to keep concealed and openly carried handguns out of the hands of former Confederate soldiers, as well as others they considered "undesirable", like Blacks and Mexicanos. We are just now getting that mess straightened out.

Great story about a great teacher with a great history. I actually did know that the gun laws in Texas were from the reconstruction period. E.J. Davis was reconstruction governor and folks used to spit on the ground when he name was spoken. He is buried in Austin Texas at the State Cemetery. His monument is the tallest one around. Once a few years ago where there were few people in the state cemetery, I pissed on his grave. Of course I didn't know the man, but I thought I owed that to my ancestors.

I would have been arrested had I been caught, but I reckoned it would be honor to be arrested for pissing on the grave of E.J. Davis.

[Char-Gar]

The Bonnie Blue Flag
1. We are a band of brothers and native to the soil


Fighting for the property we gained by honest toil[a]
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!
Chorus:


Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
2. As long as the Union was faithful to her trust


Like friends and like brethren, kind were we, and just
But now, when Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus


3. First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand


Then came Alabama and took her by the hand
Next, quickly Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida
All raised on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus


4. Ye men of valor gather round the banner of the right


Texas and fair Louisiana join us in the fight
Davis, our loved President, and Stephens statesmen rare
Now rally round the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus


5. Now here's to brave Virginia, the Old Dominion State,


With the young Confederacy at last has sealed her fate,
And spurred by her example, now other states prepare
To hoist high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus[4]


6. Then cheer, boys, cheer, raise a joyous shout


For Arkansas and North Carolina now have both gone out,
And let another rousing cheer for Tennessee be given,
The single star of the Bonnie Blue Flag has grown to be eleven.
Chorus


7. Then here's to our Confederacy, strong we are and brave,


Like patriots of old we'll fight, our heritage to save;
And rather than submit to shame, to die we would prefer,
So cheer for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Chorus[5]

Many don't know it, but the Bonnie Blue flag was incorporated into the Texas flag. It is the single star from which we get the Lone Star State. So, the Bonnie Blue is dear to our Texas hearts.

[dtknowles]

Lee did not surrender his sword. Grant added a term to the terms of surrender that allowed officers to retain their side arms to spare him the embarrassment of having to surrender his sword. Lee had brought his ornate ceremonial sword in anticipation of having to surrender it. Two men who knew the meaning of class.

In more ways than you meant. They were upper class and knew it and would expect a man to keep his place according to his class.

Tim

[Char-Gar]

Good Lord above, sometimes it's plumb depressing being a Southern man living amidst all this mess,,,m,m,m,,,,,

This morning, a wonderful woman I go to church with who we love to death, but bless her good Christian heart, she's a university town liberal, she posted a link on her Facebook page about one of the local politicians writing about "the great man".

I have had to force myself to go sort of schizophrenic around her and others like her,,,,,,,(can't be dressing down and education up the mother in law of the associate pastor, now can we,,,,,)

I view Lincoln very much like I view the pinkomuzzynancyboy.

For well over 50 years, I just held my words and smiled as Yankee history and assorted nonsense was spouted all around me. I knew better, but I was a polite sort. Then one day, I saw that our heritage was being destroyed while most folks just stood silently by. I kept waiting for somebody to step up challenge the nonsense, but nobody stepped up. It was then I realized that nobody was going to do it but me. So I have and will challenge the Confederate bashing and Abe worship every time I hear it. I even challenged my own Bishop, who was taken aback by that.

I am fighting for a lost cause, but even so, I will not back up nor allow a slight to our Confederate heritage to go unchallenged by anybody, anywhere no matter the consequences. I owe that much to the brave men that fought and died to protect their homes and family from an invading army.

[tonyjones]

After the colonies won their independence at the conclusion of the revolutionary war (the English called that conflict the war of insurrection) they became soverign states. The Articles of Confederation were enacted by the states to create a federal government to deal with the war time debt, maintain relations with foreign powers and not much else. Government under The Articles of Confederation proved ineffectual and a constitutional convention was convened to write a new constitution which the states had to ratify for it to take effect. My point is that the United States was created at the discretion of the individual states.

If anyone cares to, take your copy of the United States Constitution and read Article 1, Section 8. Then read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but that pretty much states what our federal government can and can not do. We are a constitutional republic and our Constitution IS a LIMIT on federal power.


Which Article, Section and Clause of our Constitution granted Lincoln the authority to force the Confederate States by force of arms and against their will back into the union? It does not exist. If anyone expects a people to be happy about their own subjugation...well, that's not the way Americans should think.


Tony

[Uncle R.]

L Neil Smith explained it well many years ago.

But if -- and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people -- you'd like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.
Suppose a woman -- with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated -- desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he'd already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she'd complained about his stealing.
Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn't a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force -- "sell to us at our price or pay a fine that'll put you out of business" -- for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That's what a tariff's all about. In support of this "noble principle", when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country's foreign wars -- before or afterward -- rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent -- indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims -- and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south -- where he had no effective jurisdiction -- while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead.
The fact is, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over -- income taxation and military conscription to which newly "freed" blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery -- a dubious, "politically correct" assertion with no historical evidence to back it up -- then clearly, slavery won.
Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight "knock on the door", illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, "disappearing" thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression -- in the south, it lasted half a century -- he didn't have to live through, himself.
In the end, Lincoln didn't unite this country -- that can't be done by force -- he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he'd have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.
If libertarians ran things, they'd melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.
Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they'd like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars -- more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime -- and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional "technicalities" like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world's largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.
The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else's, Abraham Lincoln's career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents -- rather than mere hundreds of thousands -- to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America's Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.

[dtknowles]

No you can't change facts and here they are. May 12, I will be offering a prayer at the 150th commemoration of the Battle of Palmito Ranch here in Deep South Texas. That was one month after Booth put a ball into the back of the tyrant Lincolns head. Lee was the first to surrender, but he was not the last. You really do need to spend some time with some history books, so you won't look so ill informed. You didn't learn it all in 9th grade.

The Army of Northern Virginia surrendered on April 9 around noon followed by General St. John Richardson Liddell's troops some six hours later.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-harrell390-2) Mosby's raiders disbanded on April 21, General Joseph E. Johnston and his various armies surrendered on April 26, the Confederate departments of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana surrendered on May 4, and the Confederate District of the Gulf, commanded by Major General Dabney Herndon Maury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabney_H._Maury), surrendered on May 5.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-Davis307-3)Confederate President Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) was captured on May 10 and the Confederate Departments of Florida and South Georgia, commanded by Confederate Major General Samuel Jones, surrendered the same day.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-korn160-4) Thompson's Brigade surrendered on May 11, Confederate forces of North Georgia surrendered on May 12, and Kirby Smith surrendered on May 26 (officially signed June 2).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-uswd-5) The last battle of the American Civil War was the Battle of Palmito Ranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmito_Ranch) in Texas on May 12 and 13. The last significant Confederate active force to surrender was the Confederate allied Cherokee Brigadier General Stand Watie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie) and his Indian soldiers on June 23. The last Confederate surrender occurred on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Shenandoah)surrendered at Liverpool, England.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War#cite_note-6) President Andrew Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson) formally declared the end of the war on August 20, 1866.




So the oh so vastly superior Texans surrendered, should they have not and fought to the last man.

They and the south lost because they were weaker than the north. They failed strategically and in the final account, tactically. It was bad judgement for them to follow the path they took and did nobody any good. Got themselves a bunch of new bosses they did not like. It is bad to lose wars or elections. You mess with the bull you get the horns, you guys should know that. Conceited!

Tim

[dtknowles]

I understand why southerners and Texans get so disturbed when talking about the Civil War, if I had my you know what handed to my by a bunch of boys from Ohio, or Pennsylvania or New York, it would be uncomfortable to talk about and I would have to have some excuse or cover story. Oh, and the usual well we almost..........

Tim

[dtknowles]

Just for the record, I was born in Springfield, Massachusetts. I expect that some people here are familiar with that city. My Dad was from Maine and my Mom was from just outside Boston. One of my great uncles did not come back from the Civil War. Don't know what happened to him just did not come back. Could be he liked the south and stayed, I know I did.

Tim

[Charley]

Great story about a great teacher with a great history. I actually did know that the gun laws in Texas were from the reconstruction period. E.J. Davis was reconstruction governor and folks used to spit on the ground when he name was spoken. He is buried in Austin Texas at the State Cemetery. His monument is the tallest one around. Once a few years ago where there were few people in the state cemetery, I pissed on his grave. Of course I didn't know the man, but I thought I owed that to my ancestors.

I would have been arrested had I been caught, but I reckoned it would be honor to be arrested for pissing on the grave of E.J. Davis.

I assumed you knew, was addressing some of the less knowledgeable here. And, of course, Davis was not exactly popular. Good shooting, watering his grave seems pretty natural.

[Uncle R.]

If you should some time wonder why the Fedgov is ever and anon increasing their control of the public schools, all you have to do is read some of the postings here. When you control the education process you can control the hearts and minds of many - or more likely most of the citizens within a generation or three. Given enough time and enough lies the worst kind of tyranny and injustice can be sold to the gullible as "supporting freedom."

Here's a challenge in historical research for you. If you think the war was fought to end slavery, go back through museums and history books and look at contemporary recruitment posters the fedgov used to encourage enlistment of cannon fodder for their invading armies. You can easily find recruiting posters with calls to put down the rebellion or save the union. See if you can find posters asking men to enlist to free the slaves. Good luck with that.

I suspect that most northern whites of that day wouldn't have risked a dollar - let alone their life - to free a thousand slaves. Perhaps I'm wrong though. Perhaps I'm wrong about the draft riots too, and about Lincoln's use of troops and killings and martial law in the north to make those men understand they were not so free as they thought. Free? They were the property of the state and before Mr. Lincoln's war was over and the tyrant was dead most had come to understand there had been a fundamental shift in the nature of this country and this government.

If you value freedom I can't understand how you can revere Lincoln. He did more damage to freedom in this country than possibly all other presidents combined.

Uncle R.

[MtGun44]

I'd expect someone raised in Mass to think Lincoln was great and the south
got what they deserved.

[Lonegun1894]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America<br /><br />)Each state had declared its secession from the United States following the November 1860 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860) of Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) candidate Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) to the U.S. presidency on a platform which opposed the expansion of slavery. A new Confederate government was proclaimed in February 1861 before Lincoln took office in March, but was considered illegal by the government of the United States. After war began in April, four states of the Upper South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_South) also declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted Missouri and Kentucky as members, although neither officially declared secession nor were they ever controlled by Confederate forces.
The government of the United States (the Union) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) rejected the claims of secession and considered the Confederacy to be illegitimate. The American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) began with the April 12, 1861 Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter), a Union fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston,_South_Carolina). By 1865, after very heavy fighting, largely on Confederate territory, C.S. forces all surrendered and the Confederacy vanished. No sovereign foreign state officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-history-state-gov-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-McPherson-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-Thomas256-3) although the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) and France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_Empire) granted it belligerent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent) status. While the war lacked a formal end, Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) later lamented that the Confederacy had "disappeared" in 1865.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#cite_note-5)

Going by this logic, that the North didn't recognize or permit the South to secede, or that other countries recognized the South as a belligerent instead of an independent nation, that would make us all British subjects instead of US Citizens, cause if you will remember, the Brits didn't exactly shake hands with us and wish us luck and leave in peace when we declared independence from them either.

[dtknowles]

I'd expect someone raised in Mass to think Lincoln was great and the south
got what they deserved.

Go back and see. I never praised Lincoln or his actions. I just said we won and ruled over the south and I understand why Southerners did not like that. By the way I was born in Mass. I was raised in rural central Maine, we moved their when I was 6. I have seen the U.S. from many different vantage points. I have lived in Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, and California beside Mass and Maine.

Tim

[Multigunner]

The South started the war when they didn't have a single cannon factory, and very few arms factories of any kind. When they captured more modern Spencer breech loaders from U S troops they had no way of manufacturing brass cartridges or replacement parts so the rifles went into storage or occasionally were converted to muzzle loaders.
A number of Sharps rifles seized without the breech blocks were converted to muzzle loaders.
The South had expected to be able to buy all the war material they needed in Europe and pay for it with cotton. The U S Navy made these blockade running trips too dangerous for anyone to try unless they expected a huge return on their investment.

The South was almost always short on necessary supplies, they even ran out of shoes towards the end. For all practical purposes their paper currency was worthless, they had to pay the European arms suppliers in gold or take out huge loans backed by expected future cotten sales.
Cotton rotted on the docks because of the blockade.
Unfortunately the Egyptians had developed a decent strain of cotten that was competitive with the superior long fiber American product. The world no longer had to depend on American cotten.

With very little heavy industry in the South they were beaten before they got started.
Like the NAZIs the Confederacy depended on skilled slave labor to take the place of the young men they fed to the meat grinder. Unlike the NAZIs the Confederacy already had the slaves rather than carrying off victims from occupied countries. Due to laws against teaching slaves how to read and write their productivity was limited when it came to learning how to use complicated machinery.
There were many skilled craftsmen in the south, but not that much in the way of mass production.
When trains were damaged or destroyed they couldn't replace them. When train tracks were torn up and the rails heated and bent they couldn't replace them. long range raids to destroy rail traffic in Georgia put a very big nail in their coffin. Those few functioning sources of supply for such desperately needed materials were useless when they had no means of mass transport.
Industrialized societies have a distinct advantage when it comes to modern warfare. An agrarian society must have deep pockets or unlimited credit and solid contacts and/or sympatheizers in an industrialized country that can supply what they can not build for themselves. And then they must also have to have reliable transport for those supplies.

[texaswoodworker]

How many time did JFK go to Texas?
Not too many because he was killed by a guy from Louisiana. Nice attempt at a jab though.

[texaswoodworker]

The South started the war when they didn't have a single cannon factory, and very few arms factories of any kind. When they captured more modern Spencer breech loaders from U S troops they had no way of manufacturing brass cartridges or replacement parts so the rifles went into storage or occasionally were converted to muzzle loaders.
A number of Sharps rifles seized without the breech blocks were converted to muzzle loaders.
The South had expected to be able to buy all the war material they needed in Europe and pay for it with cotton. The U S Navy made these blockade running trips too dangerous for anyone to try unless they expected a huge return on their investment.

The South was almost always short on necessary supplies, they even ran out of shoes towards the end. For all practical purposes their paper currency was worthless, they had to pay the European arms suppliers in gold or take out huge loans backed by expected future cotten sales.
Cotton rotted on the docks because of the blockade.
Unfortunately the Egyptians had developed a decent strain of cotten that was competitive with the superior long fiber American product. The world no longer had to depend on American cotten.

With very little heavy industry in the South they were beaten before they got started.


1. The North started the war.

2. The South would have won had Lee not made the mistake of trying to win Gettysburg quickly.

3. The North shared your belief that the South could not possibly win. So much so that during one of the first major battles of the war, there were Northern spectators there to watch the excitement. That would be the 1st battle of Bull Run, and as you may know, the Union lost that battle big time.

[Thumbcocker]

"The South would have won had Lee not made the mistake of trying to win Gettysburg quickly."

I am not sure what you mean by "quickly". Lee was deep in enemy territory, had extended supply lines, and was in no position to hold any territory he was not physically standing on. Longstreet consoled to let Mead attack first. Longstreet know a thing or two about the results attacking dug in infantry. IMHO Longstreet was a superior general (if not idolized as a leader) with a superior strategic sense and got the big picture.

Lee was up against a ticking clock at Gettysburg and his personality would not let him withdraw without a fight. His tactics had been very wasteful of his soldiers up to that point and were disastrous at Gettysburg. When you lose 20% of your smaller force to inflict 20% casualties on a larger force you are only 4 victories away from losing your army.

[texaswoodworker]

"The South would have won had Lee not made the mistake of trying to win Gettysburg quickly."

I am not sure what you mean by "quickly". Lee was deep in enemy territory, had extended supply lines, and was in no position to hold any territory he was not physically standing on. Longstreet consoled to let Mead attack first. Longstreet know a thing or two about the results attacking dug in infantry. IMHO Longstreet was a superior general (if not idolized as a leader) with a superior strategic sense and got the big picture.

Lee was up against a ticking clock at Gettysburg and his personality would not let him withdraw without a fight. His tactics had been very wasteful of his soldiers up to that point and were disastrous at Gettysburg. When you lose 20% of your smaller force to inflict 20% casualties on a larger force you are only 4 victories away from losing your army.

Lee was suffering from a heart disease, and may have even had a minor heart attack prior to Gettysburg. He feared that his health was going to continue to decline, so in an attempt to win the war while he still could, he rushed things and made some other poor choices. Had he done what he needed to at Gettysburg and won the battle, he would have been able to surround D.C. and we wouldn't be having this conversation.


August 1863, Letter written from Gen. Robert E. Lee to Confederate president Jefferson Davis:
“I have not yet recovered from the attack I experienced this spring. I am becoming more and more incapable of exertion, and thus am prevented from making the personal examinations and giving the personal supervision to the operations in the field which I feel to be necessary. I am so dull that in making use of the eyes of others I am frequently misled. Everything, therefore points to the advantages to be derived from a new commander.”




Lets rewind the timeline back 4 months~ Just prior to the battle Chanscellorsville, Lee comes down with a severe case of laryngitis and experiences crushing chest pains. Dr.’s soon diagnos Lee with pericarditis (inflamation of the pericardium; the membrane covering the heart), often caused by infections. Lee recieves the best medical treatment available for the times. However, modern Dr’s now believe that Lee was miss diagnosed...
In “Lexington physicains of General Robert E Lee”, Southern Medical Journal. aug. 2005, Dr. Mariwaring of UV describes Lee’s symptoms as being classic and unmistakable for the diagnosis of angina pectoris.”
According to Tabor’s medical dictionary, angina pectoris is caused by poor suppy of oxygenated blood through the coronary arteries to heart muscle. This condition is caused by atherosclerosis, or clogging of the arteries. Symptoms include crushing tightness in the chest which my radiate to the back, jaw, neck ,and arms. Condtion becomes worse with increased exertion or psychological stress.
In short, Lee’s Dr.’s may have underestimated the severity of his condition.

http://www.americancivilwarforum.com/heart-dease-of-gen.-lee-its-possible-effects-on-southern-aspirations.-201.html

[Thumbcocker]

I had read that Lee had heart issues. I do not think he would have been able to surround Washington after a Gettysburg victory. Washington was well fortified and garrisoned and Lee's supply lines were dangerously extended. In addition Mead was preparing a secondary line on much better ground as a fall back position. Then there was the issue of Grant and Sherman's armies in the rear.

[dtknowles]

Lee was suffering from a heart disease, and may have even had a minor heart attack prior to Gettysburg. He feared that his health was going to continue to decline, so in an attempt to win the war while he still could, he rushed things and made some other poor choices. Had he done what he needed to at Gettysburg and won the battle, he would have been able to surround D.C. and we wouldn't be having this conversation.





http://www.americancivilwarforum.com/heart-dease-of-gen.-lee-its-possible-effects-on-southern-aspirations.-201.html


The South lost and was mistreated but suck it up and stop whining and making excuses.

Tim

[Char-Gar]

The last battle was fought a few miles from where I sit. The battle of Palmito Ranch and it was a decisive Confederate victory by the 2nd. Texas Cav. lead by Col J.S. "Rip" Ford of Texas Ranger fame.

The soldiers of the Department of Texas (CSA) and those in the Trans-Mississippi did not surrender or lay down arms, They just quit fighting and went home. Ford and most of the officers and men of the 2nd. Texas crossed into Mexico where they were given asylum. Ford and most of the officers returned to Texas a few months later.

The Federal Commander of the forces at Palmito Ranch was Court Martialed due to the fact that his troops broke and ran. Ford testified in his defense to the effect that the Union commander acted bravely. The Union Commander was acquitted.

My Great Grandfather (W.D. Mathews) served through out the war in the 21st. Texas Cav in the Trans-Mississippi campaigns. The 21st. did not surrender or lay down arms. The returned to Greenville Texas, where they enlisted, in regimental strength and were mustered out of Confederate service. This is the way most Texas units ended their Confederate service.

My Great Great Grandfather (Charles Henry Featherston) was a Captain in the 11th Texas Cav, was wounded at Pea Ridge and mustered out of service.

My Great Great Grandfather (Daniel Thomas Boatwright) was a 1st. Lt. with the 10th Texas Infantry and was taken prisoner at Arkansas Post. He died in Georgia a few week after being released in a prisoner exchange due to illness he contracted in the prison camp.


I do realize that many people dislike Confederates in general and Texans in particular, due to the fact even though the Confederacy was defeated in battle, we will not kneel before the victors, but continue to remain defiant. They want us to accept and acknowledge our defeat and status as lesser individuals who fought for a lesser cause.

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard the Confederate General once said:

"The fact that one army was fighting for union and the other army for disunion is a political expression; the actual fact on the battlefield, in face of cannon and musket, was the Federal troops came as invaders, and the Southern troops stood as defenders of their homes, and further than this we need not go."

Animus toward Confederates and Texas is not new to me, for I have know it all my life. I have come to expect it from the arrogant and the ignorant. Texas is unique and quite different from others states in that we had our own war of independence against Mexico and was our own country (Republic of Texas) before making the fateful decision to join the United States, which we did voluntarily. The results of this unique history is a unique culture and a great pride in being a Texan.

Once folks from all states found their identity in being from their state. But somewhere along the line the were placed in the cultural blender and all no longer identify themselves men as from their state. They have indeed become homogenized and are generic Americans. Texas and Texans have refused to go into the blender and remain separate, unique and distinct. We intend to stay that way. Like it or not, we won't join you in the blender so we can be like you. We don't want to be like you and so we won't. We don't want to be a generic anything. We do not want to be a part of the Borg.

Some say that we should lay aside all of these differences and join hand in singing Kum-By-Ya, because of our mutual interest in guns. Such a thing of course is possible, until somebody puts up a St. Abe worship thread and then the game is afoot.

The fact that this board allows political and religious threads is lamentable because these topics negate whatever unity we might have over our mutual interest in guns.

I was in on the establishment of another gun related board and am one of the Moderators there. Quite by intention, we will not allow political or religious threads. We don't even allow 2nd. Amendment threads because they morp into a thread of a general political thread. We took this position because of all the havoc that religious and political threads bring to this board. We did not want to repeat this same mistake. The division caused by such threads pour over into gun related threads because of the bad relationships created.

Again, spew whatever animus you wish against the Confederacy and Texas and I will continue to bless your hearts. It really doesn't matter, have an effect on me or change my thinking in the least regard. I have lived as an independent and defiant Texan and will die as I have lived.

From Occupied Texas I continue to say....God bless Texas!!

[Thumbcocker]

Motivated by this thread I did some research on Texas civil war casualties. Apparently Texas suffered the third fewest casualties of the confederacy. I thought it would be much higher. Looks like around 5000. Not trying to stir any pots or make any statements just something I didn't know.

[DCP]

The last battle was fought a few miles from where I sit. The battle of Palmito Ranch and it was a decisive Confederate victory by the 2nd. Texas Cav. lead by Col J.S. "Rip" Ford of Texas Ranger fame.

The soldiers of the Department of Texas (CSA) and those in the Trans-Mississippi did not surrender or lay down arms, They just quit fighting and went home. Ford and most of the officers and men of the 2nd. Texas crossed into Mexico where they were given asylum. Ford and most of the officers returned to Texas a few months later.

The Federal Commander of the forces at Palmito Ranch was Court Martialed due to the fact that his troops broke and ran. Ford testified in his defense to the effect that the Union commander acted bravely. The Union Commander was acquitted.

My Great Grandfather (W.D. Mathews) served through out the war in the 21st. Texas Cav in the Trans-Mississippi campaigns. The 21st. did not surrender or lay down arms. The returned to Greenville Texas, where they enlisted, in regimental strength and were mustered out of Confederate service. This is the way most Texas units ended their Confederate service.

My Great Great Grandfather (Charles Henry Featherston) was a Captain in the 11th Texas Cav, was wounded at Pea Ridge and mustered out of service.

My Great Great Grandfather (Daniel Thomas Boatwright) was a 1st. Lt. with the 10th Texas Infantry and was taken prisoner at Arkansas Post. He died in Georgia a few week after being released in a prisoner exchange due to illness he contracted in the prison camp.


I do realize that many people dislike Confederates in general and Texans in particular, due to the fact even though the Confederacy was defeated in battle, we will not kneel before the victors, but continue to remain defiant. They want us to accept and acknowledge our defeat and status as lesser individuals who fought for a lesser cause.

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard the Confederate General once said:

"The fact that one army was fighting for union and the other army for disunion is a political expression; the actual fact on the battlefield, in face of cannon and musket, was the Federal troops came as invaders, and the Southern troops stood as defenders of their homes, and further than this we need not go."

Animus toward Confederates and Texas is not new to me, for I have know it all my life. I have come to expect it from the arrogant and the ignorant. Texas is unique and quite different from others states in that we had our own war of independence against Mexico and was our own country (Republic of Texas) before making the fateful decision to join the United States, which we did voluntarily. The results of this unique history is a unique culture and a great pride in being a Texan.

Once folks from all states found their identity in being from their state. But somewhere along the line the were placed in the cultural blender and all no longer identify themselves men as from their state. They have indeed become homogenized and are generic Americans. Texas and Texans have refused to go into the blender and remain separate, unique and distinct. We intend to stay that way. Like it or not, we won't join you in the blender so we can be like you. We don't want to be like you and so we won't. We don't want to be a generic anything. We do not want to be a part of the Borg.

Some say that we should lay aside all of these differences and join hand in singing Kum-By-Ya, because of our mutual interest in guns. Such a thing of course is possible, until somebody puts up a St. Abe worship thread and then the game is afoot.

The fact that this board allows political and religious threads is lamentable because these topics negate whatever unity we might have over our mutual interest in guns.

I was in on the establishment of another gun related board and am one of the Moderators there. Quite by intention, we will not allow political or religious threads. We don't even allow 2nd. Amendment threads because they morp into a thread of a general political thread. We took this position because of all the havoc that religious and political threads bring to this board. We did not want to repeat this same mistake. The division caused by such threads pour over into gun related threads because of the bad relationships created.

Again, spew whatever animus you wish against the Confederacy and Texas and I will continue to bless your hearts. It really doesn't matter, have an effect on me or change my thinking in the least regard. I have lived as an independent and defiant Texan and will die as I have lived.

From Occupied Texas I continue to say....God bless Texas!!

The TRUTH is you still fighting this bloody war.
What does Christ tell you about whats in your heart after 150 yrs? (70x7)
You will die a bitter old man, What will you say to God when you stand in judgement?.


I would have fought for CSA and I believe it may rise again

From Occupied ILLINIOS I continue to say....God bless the USA!!

Vaya con Dios

[Char-Gar]

Motivated by this thread I did some research on Texas civil war casualties. Apparently Texas suffered the third fewest casualties of the confederacy. I thought it would be much higher. Looks like around 5000. Not trying to stir any pots or make any statements just something I didn't know.

The war in the Trans-Mississippi was a much lower level and the battles much smaller. The really big battles took place on the East side of the Mississippi River. A few Texas units served on the East side of the river, but the majority served on the West side. This is the primary reason for fewer Texas casualties.

The thinking of Texas units in the Trans-Mississippi was somewhat different. The saw themselves as a line between the enemy and Texas. Their job was to keep the enemy away from Texas and their families and homes. For the most part they were successful in that effort. The battles in Texas proper were much smaller in scale and were losses for the Federal forces.

Cotton from the Trans-Mississippi came through Texas down to the Rio Grande river and crossed into Mexico at different points between Brownsville and Laredo. The cotton was then loaded onto Mexican flag ships and sold in Europe and elsewhere. Arms and medical supplies returned the other way us "the cotton trail". The Feds tried several times to cut this flow at Sabine Pass, Corpus Christi and with a federal force on Brazos Island near the mouth of the Rio Grande. There were multiple small scale battled up and down the Rio Grande River as the Federals tried and disrupt the flow of cotton and goods. Ft. Brown at Brownsville Texas changed hands several times during this time.

Thanks to the gallant service of the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi, Texas was spared the devastation of having major war fought on it's soil, unlike other places in the South. However Texas was occupied after the war, and suffered the same punishment as others states in the South.

As an aside, the Union government tried to negotiate a separate peace with Texas, but it was rejected. This happened near the end of the war.

[Char-Gar]

The TRUTH is you still fighting this bloody war.
What does Christ tell you about whats in your heart after 150 yrs? (70x7)
You will die a bitter old man, What will you say to God when you stand in judgement?.


I would have fought for CSA and I believe it may rise again

From Occupied ILLINIOS I continue to say....God bless the USA!!

Vaya con Dios

Ahhh...now comes the spiritual judgment and hypocrisy. That is always the last resort, when argument ceases, the Bibles comes out and the judgment begins. I must be getting under someone's skin. That makes me happy!

[sundog]

Perhaps this discussion should be a learning and teaching tool for all of us. Congratulations to Thumbcocker for doing some research -- something that would not be detrimental to any of us. History cannot be lost to the ages. Nor should it be rewritten or painted with a brush of bias as often happens because of the prejudice of writers, publishers, and professors. Our history is replete with skewed accounts of what happened to the great Native American Nations that existed for thousands of years before 'whitey' got here and destroyed cultures that they were too arrogant or ignorant to understand. And before that the conquest of the great nations in Central and South America. Undoubtedly, our species is the most destructive on the planet. Hindsight being what it is so often allows us to view events in broader terms than the participants. Lastly, being human we all have prejudice and bias. Overcoming that requires an open mind and a willingness to [re]learn history.

When I was in grade school and high school I thought history was a boring exercise in learning about guys running around in togas or riding elephants across the Alps or a cow starting a big fire in Chicago. Just a never ending series of dates and events to memorize in order to regurgitate it on a test. No one ever put it into perspective. As I aged, I began to understand it's significance. Yes, I had to relearn a lot along the way.

[DCP]

Ahhh...now comes the spiritual judgment and hypocrisy. That is always the last resort, when argument ceases, the Bibles comes out and the judgment begins. I must be getting under someone's skin. That makes me happy!

No I am not Judging you that Gods job but you know that (You try to deflect) your not under my skin either.
Answer my questions if you fear not.

None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game.
Remember that how so ever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power.
When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.

[Char-Gar]

No I am not Judging you that Gods job but you know that (You try to deflect) your not under my skin either.
Answer my questions if you fear not.

None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game.
Remember that how so ever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power.
When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.

Ahhh..Mystical gibberish. This thread is really gone to pot. What is next, incantations and spells?

[dlbarr]

......Some say that we should lay aside all of these differences and join hand in singing Kum-By-Ya, because of our mutual interest in guns. Such a thing of course is possible, until somebody puts up a St. Abe worship thread and then the game is afoot.

The fact that this board allows political and religious threads is lamentable because these topics negate whatever unity we might have over our mutual interest in guns.....

CG, I like you man, but your assessment of other's intentions is extreme.

I, for one, certainly do not consider you, or the Confederacy in general, less than anyone else or any other group. If my home land had been attacked, I'd have done just what your ancestors did. And I know you're not looking for accolades or approval from "the outside" - all understood. There are things in life that are worth shedding blood over. As I get older, I believe those things to be fewer & fewer.

I am personally glad this forum is unique in that it allows political & religious discourse. Such discussions do not have to become contentious. Go back to the opening post...all the guy expressed was his admiration of A.L. in some fashion. He didn't stick it in anybody's face, he just said what he thought. What ensued from there was a whole bunch of people (on both sides of the topic) getting offended at what somebody else said. Suppose someone here opened a thread celebrating the birthdate of REL or JD or any other hero of the South? Should we consider that grounds for someone else to be righteously indignant? I imagine not. Opinions CAN be expressed with the understanding that you & I may not agree and the differences can be discussed without sending messages like a bullet.

What is lamentable is the tone of the conversation which could have been an interesting lesson in American history. As it is, there's a whole lot of chips on the shoulders of people who have frequented this thread. Some wear blue shirts. Some wear grey.

[Char-Gar]

Perhaps this discussion should be a learning and teaching tool for all of us. Congratulations to Thumbcocker for doing some research -- something that would not be detrimental to any of us. History cannot be lost to the ages. Nor should it be rewritten or painted with a brush of bias as often happens because of the prejudice of writers, publishers, and professors. Our history is replete with skewed accounts of what happened to the great Native American Nations that existed for thousands of years before 'whitey' got here and destroyed cultures that they were too arrogant or ignorant to understand. And before that the conquest of the great nations in Central and South America. Undoubtedly, our species is the most destructive on the planet. Hindsight being what it is so often allows us to view events in broader terms than the participants. Lastly, being human we all have prejudice and bias. Overcoming that requires an open mind and a willingness to [re]learn history.

When I was in grade school and high school I thought history was a boring exercise in learning about guys running around in togas or riding elephants across the Alps or a cow starting a big fire in Chicago. Just a never ending series of dates and events to memorize in order to regurgitate it on a test. No one ever put it into perspective. As I aged, I began to understand it's significance. Yes, I had to relearn a lot along the way.

Yes, history should not be abandoned when we finish school, or left to the writers of textbooks. Textbooks, history and otherwise are frequently spun by the writers to their particular bent. My wife was a College History Prof. for 30 years and toward the end, her worse problems was having the students say..."Ms. Shands, that is not what the book says.".

Without independent study we will not know our history and if we don't know our history, we will never understand who we are and where we are going.

Good on you Corky.....

[Char-Gar]

CG, I like you man, but your assessment of other's intentions is extreme.

I, for one, certainly do not consider you, or the Confederacy in general, less than anyone else or any other group. If my home land had been attacked, I'd have done just what your ancestors did. And I know you're not looking for accolades or approval from "the outside" - all understood. There are things in life that are worth shedding blood over. As I get older, I believe those things to be fewer & fewer.

I am personally glad this forum is unique in that it allows political & religious discourse. Such discussions do not have to become contentious. Go back to the opening post...all the guy expressed was his admiration of A.L. in some fashion. He didn't stick it in anybody's face, he just said what he thought. What ensued from there was a whole bunch of people (on both sides of the topic) getting offended at what somebody else said. Suppose someone here opened a thread celebrating the birthdate of REL or JD or any other hero of the South? Should we consider that grounds for someone else to be righteously indignant? I imagine not. Opinions CAN be expressed with the understanding that you & I may not agree and the differences can be discussed without sending messages like a bullet.

There's a whole lot of chips on the shoulders of people who have frequented this thread. Some wear blue shirts. Some wear grey.

You have a valid point and let me address that as best I can. I don't like to call out individuals by name and dispute them, but prefer to address the general topic and in the body of that address certain individuals and their issues. That is a rather shotgun approach, I know and probably is unfair to some. I know that when I do it.

These boards get to be pissing matches between individuals and that is why I prefer to avoid addressing individuals when I can. That may not make any sense, nor be the best way to do it, but there it is. These threads always tend to devolve into personal animus toward the end and I don't like that. By keeping these threads on a broader level, I hope to keep things on the content level as long as possible. I may be working against myself, but that is my intent, whether it works or not.

I do read each post and take note of who says what and I do apologize if anybody gets hit that does not deserve to be hit in my shotgun approach.

Contrary to what some may think I don't take any personal offense at anything anybody else says about my thinking or about me. I do enjoy the thrust and parry of it all. I enjoy debate and mental combat and can do so without getting my emotions involved. I guess that comes from being a lawyer. I am not angry at anyone living or dead, nor bitter about any thing in history. I just have some closely held beliefs and positions and will advance my defense in a reasoned way whenever I feel the need. I don't see this as a personal or spiritual failing, but something most men will do.

Again, my apologies to anyone who may have been collateral damage to some of my stuff, for that was not my intent. I suppose I should feel bad and/or guilty for enjoying all of this, but I don't.

I recall as a child laying in bed at the ranch listening to the growups, play card and discuss politics on the porch. I was upset on night when I head my Uncle Bond, tell my Uncle Charles, "That is a damn lie" and hit his hand on the table. The next night I head Uncle Bond say to Uncle Charles, "Charlie, lets switch sides, tonight I will be the Republican and you can be the Democrat.". It was then I realized what a great sport this kind of thing can be. To bad others were not raised the same way. They take this stuff way to seriously. But I am not responsible for them, just what is in my heart, mind and soul.

I know some folks get frustrated with me because the have run out of arguments and I have failed to yield the battlefield. That is when things get nasty and devolve into name calling, insults or spiritual judgments. I do understand they are frustrated and really don't hold that against them, for that is part of human nature. No sense in getting angry at a fellow for being human.

[Char-Gar]

I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who are the successors to the United Confederate Veterans and who in 1906 received the following charge. I take this charge seriously and this will explain why I am such a zealous advocate of Confederate heritage on this site.


Charge to the Sons of Confederate Veterans


To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the Cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations.

Lt. General Stephen Dill Lee
Commander-General
United Confederate Veterans
New Orleans, 25 April 1906

[Multigunner]

Texaz Woodworker

1. The North started the war.
Who fired on who at Fort Sumpter?


2. The South would have won had Lee not made the mistake of trying to win Gettysburg quickly.
Pinning your hopes on a fluke that didn't pan out is hardly a game plan.
The British thought burning Washington would win the war of 1812, that didn't pan out either.


3. The North shared your belief that the South could not possibly win. So much so that during one of the first major battles of the war, there were Northern spectators there to watch the excitement. That would be the 1st battle of Bull Run, and as you may know, the Union lost that battle big time.
And despite horrific causualties and early successes the south ultimately couldn't win. They couldn't win because of those insurmountable shortcomings I mentioned.
Its not who wins the first battle its who wins the last battle.

Those who depend on sea travel to obtain war materials had best have a very strong navy, the south had seized some USN vessels before the war, and had a few advanced privateers, but they could never match the USN in open battle much less guard civilian blockade runners.
When war materials did trickle through the blockades lack of efficient rail transport meant those supplies were slow show or no show when needed.

[DCP]

Ahhh..Mystical gibberish. This thread is really gone to pot. What is next, incantations and spells?

AGAIN YOU DEFLECT

Matthew 6:14-15 NIV

For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Colossians 3:13 NIV

Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

Ephesians 4:31-32 NIV

Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Jesus' Teaching on Forgiveness: 7 Bible Verses You Should Know

#2 Be ready to forgive over and over again

Matthew 18: 21-22 NIV

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times? “Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

#3 To avoid making others be overwhelmed

2 corinthians 2:5-8 NIV

If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.

#4 Love will lead to forgiving others

1 corinthians 13:4 - 6 NIV

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

#5 Priority when it comes to forgiving others

Matthew 5:23-24 NIV

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”

[Char-Gar]

[QUOTE And despite horrific causualties and early successes the south ultimately couldn't win. They couldn't win because of those insurmountable shortcomings I mentioned.
Its not who wins the first battle its who wins the last battle.[/QUOTE]

The Confederacy won the last battle, so that that mean it won the war?

[BLTsandwedge]

My take on this is a bit different than what the core of this thread focuses on. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union. That's pretty well accepted. The debate has been if that preserving the Union was the right thing- the best outcome. A moot point. The Union was preserved. Debate on this point can't be more than conjecture.

My opinion on this single issue- whether preserving the Union was good or not- is that it was a good thing. I can't imagine the US being the superpower we are today if we were fragmented. I ask this question: If we were fragmented, could we have preformed in WWII as we did? Could we have fought Germany in a timely fashion? Could the Manhattan Project have produced a nuclear weapon before Germany? Again- conjecture. I still believe we would have a very different country today and I don't think it would be for the better.

[Char-Gar]

My take on this is a bit different than what the core of this thread focuses on. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union. That's pretty well accepted. The debate has been if that preserving the Union was the right thing- the best outcome. A moot point. The Union was preserved. Debate on this point can't be more than conjecture.

My opinion on this single issue- whether preserving the Union was good or not- is that it was a good thing. I can't imagine the US being the superpower we are today if we were fragmented. I ask this question: If we were fragmented, could we have preformed in WWII as we did? Could we have fought Germany in a timely fashion? Could the Manhattan Project have produced a nuclear weapon before Germany? Again- conjecture. I still believe we would have a very different country today and I don't think it would be for the better.

When folks try and look into the future and determine how the world would be if you changed just one thing, they also forget that that would thing would change most everything else between point A and point B. So, it is a useless thing to do.

We cannot predict what would have happen in the past 150 years if we had two countries. Maybe things would be worse, but then again maybe thing would be better.

I for one have no idea what would have happened had the Confederacy been allowed to go it's own way in peace. Perhaps they would have reunified at some point or perhaps not. Forced reunification by arms and blood however was not a good idea, as it forever divided a country. There is an old saying, "You can tie two cats together by the tail and have union, but you will not have unity." That pretty well described the effect of Lincoln's war.

[dlbarr]

There is an old saying, "You can tie two cats together by the tail and have union, but you will not have unity." That pretty well described the effect of Lincoln's war.

I agree with BLTsandwedge that the debate is pretty much all conjecture in terms of other possible outcomes.

But, CG, your most recent point is obviously not conjecture.

[BLTsandwedge]

When folks try and look into the future and determine how the world would be if you changed just one thing, they also forget that that would thing would change most everything else between point A and point B. So, it is a useless thing to do.

We cannot predict what would have happen in the past 150 years if we had two countries. Maybe things would be worse, but then again maybe thing would be better.

I for one have no idea what would have happened had the Confederacy been allowed to go it's own way in peace. Perhaps they would have reunified at some point or perhaps not. Forced reunification by arms and blood however was not a good idea, as it forever divided a country. There is an old saying, "You can tie two cats together by the tail and have union, but you will not have unity." That pretty well described the effect of Lincoln's war.

Correct. That's why it is my opinion and nothing more. I can well argue that neither the US or the Confederate States would ever be as financially strong separated. Think of it as a bad marriage- the marriage sucks, but the financial benefit of two household incomes can't be denied. But again, that's conjecture- as any postulate regarding a moot topic is sure to be.

However, I'm disappointed that you feel that this country is still divided because of the Civil War. My angst is not focused on you, Charles- I just don't want this country to be divided period- for any reason. At the very least, it spells economic instability- I give you our current body politic as clear evidence. Europe and the Euro is a complimentary analogy. I will ask you one last question of conjecture though. If Texas was independent, what would Texas do without the Chicago Mercantile/COBT? I have my own ideas but I'd like to hear yours. No challenge intended- this is in the spirit of honest discourse.

Shabbat Shalom!

[texaswoodworker]

The South lost and was mistreated but suck it up and stop whining and making excuses.

Tim

I didn't relize stating why the South lost was making excuses, and I didn't realize stating grievances was wining. How about you get over yourself?


Texaz Woodworker

Who fired on who at Fort Sumter?


Pinning your hopes on a fluke that didn't pan out is hardly a game plan.
The British thought burning Washington would win the war of 1812, that didn't pan out either.


And despite horrific causualties and early successes the south ultimately couldn't win. They couldn't win because of those insurmountable shortcomings I mentioned.
Its not who wins the first battle its who wins the last battle.

Those who depend on sea travel to obtain war materials had best have a very strong navy, the south had seized some USN vessels before the war, and had a few advanced privateers, but they could never match the USN in open battle much less guard civilian blockade runners.
When war materials did trickle through the blockades lack of efficient rail transport meant those supplies were slow show or no show when needed.

Who fired first at Sumter? A better question is, why was the Union occupying the land of another SOVEREIGN nation without their permission? That's an act of war. Blockading SOUTHERN ports was also an act of war. Had the British blockaded America's ports and occupied forts in US territory, do you think that the US would have done something about it? The Confederacy was completely within their rights to open fire on foreign invaders committing acts of war.

I don't call the Confederate victories a fluke. Despite all the issues they had with supplies, they were holding their own against the Northern invaders. Had Lee captured Gettysburg and then D.C., the Union would have had a much harder time winning the war. And no, the South was not destined to lose. Anyone who claims that there is no way that they could have won obviously knows nothing about Civil War history.

BTW, Didn't the colonies have similar shortcomings? They fought the most powerful military in the world and won twice.

[Multigunner]

Its stretching things to call Palmetto ranch a battle

skir·mish
(skûr′mĭsh)
n.
1. A minor battle in war, as one between small forces or between large forces avoiding direct conflict.

2. A minor or preliminary conflict or dispute: a skirmish over the rules before the debate began.

intr.v. skir·mished, skir·mish·ing, skir·mish·es
To engage in a minor battle or dispute.
What Union territory did the Confederate forces at Palmetto seize control of?
They fended off an ill conceived attack, and thats about it.


By the time the Battle of Palmito Ranch took place, the war was long over. On April 9 Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House. On April 15 Lincoln died after being shot the night before by John Wilkes Booth. Booth was shot and killed on April 26; the same day General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered to General Sherman. On May 4 General Richard Taylor surrendered to General E. R. S. Canby. On May 9 President Johnson declared an official end to the war, and on May 10 Jefferson Davis was captured.
http://www.americancivilwarstory.com/battle-of-palmito-ranch.html


A better question is, why was the Union occupying the land of another SOVEREIGN nation without their permission?
Since the fort was in the act of being evacuated as previously agreed to and the Confederate commanders had agreed on an extension on the time limit firing on the fort was against the rules of conduct and an act of war.
Fort Sumpter and other forts in the south that were abandoned and turned over to confederate forces were Federal property.


Anyone who claims that there is no way that they could have won obviously knows nothing about Civil War history.
Whatever could have happened already did happen.
You can ponder what ifs till the cows come home but no miracles happened to save the Confederacy.
Contrary to popular belief among the Confederate aristocracy God was not on their side.




BTW, Didn't the colonies have similar shortcomings? They fought the most powerful military in the world and won twice.
With help from the French during the Revolutionary War, a powerful european ally with a strong naval presence and not the least bit afraid of the British. There was nothing the French liked better than sticking it to the Brits.
Also John Paul Jones proved that British shipping was no longer safe even in their own harbors.
The British relied on unimpeded sea transport to carry men and supplies thousands of miles to our shores, that didn't always work out well for them in the age of fighting sail.
The Union land forces only required sea transport when attacking Confederate fortresses near the shorelines.

During the War of 1812 the USN though smaller in number of ships entirely out classed the British due to superior materials and building techniques and vastly better manueverability. America had already arrived as a major naval power. Also by 1812 the USA had no need to depend on outside supply of war material, we were already an industrial nation.
One American frigate on a long range patrol captured enough British gold to entirely pay for all US naval operations during that war. best the British could do was sink a lot of small privateers.
The British Navy was over extended due to losses to the French.

In both those wars Naval operations were pivotal. The south had no navy to speak of beyond river and harbor defensive craft, and they were outclassed in every way.
They could not even protect their port cities from naval bombardment.

[starmac]

Dadgum MG, the way you put it, if the south would have had anything except grit going for it, them Yanks wouldn't have stood a chance. As it was they made a pretty good showing with nothing but the threat of losing their land and lifestyle.

[texaswoodworker]

There are a lot of things that could of happened, so the idea that everything that could of happened did happen is completely false. Gettysburg is called the turning point of the war for a reason.

As for the Fort, the SECOND that South Carolina left the Union, that fort and all others within her borders became the property of South Carolina and the Confederacy. The Union had illegally occupied that fort for 4-5 months after it no longer belonged to them. The Confederacy rightfully removed foreign invaders from their soil. You also conveniently left out the blockading of Southern ports, also an act of war. Was there and agreement on that too?

It doesn't sound like they were planning to leave. Quite the opposite actually.


When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860, United States Maj. Robert Anderson and his force of 85 soldiers were positioned at Fort Moultrie near the mouth of Charleston Harbor. On December 26, fearing for the safety of his men, Anderson moved his command to Fort Sumter, an imposing fortification in the middle of the harbor. While politicians and military commanders wrote and screamed about the legality and appropriateness of this provocative move, Anderson’s position became perilous. Just after the inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1861, Anderson reported that he had only a six week supply of food left in the fort and Confederate patience for a foreign force in its territory was wearing thin. On Thursday, April 11, 1861, Confederate Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard dispatched aides to Maj. Anderson to demand the fort’s surrender. Anderson refused. The next morning, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter and continued for 34 hours. The Civil War had begun! Anderson did not return the fire for the first two hours. The fort's supply of ammunition was not suited for an equal fight and Anderson lacked fuses for his exploding shells--only solid shot could be used against the Rebel batteries. At about 7:00 A.M., Union Capt. Abner Doubleday, the fort's second in command, was afforded the honor of firing the first shot in defense of the fort.

The firing continued all day, although much less rapidly since the Union fired aimed to conserve ammunition. "The crashing of the shot, the bursting of the shells, the falling of the walls, and the roar of the flames, made a pandemonium of the fort," wrote Doubleday. The fort's large flag staff was struck and the colors fell to the ground and a brave lieutenant, Norman J. Hall, bravely exposed himself to enemy fire as he put the Stars and Stripes back up. That evening, the firing was sporadic with but an occasional round landing on or in Fort Sumter.

[Multigunner]

The next day, April 11, members of Beauregard’s staff arrived at Fort Sumter demanding its evacuation. Again, Anderson refused, but in a conversation with the officers told them, “If you do not batter us to pieces we will be starved out in a few days.” This information was sent to Walker, who replied that if Anderson declared when he would leave the fort, hostile action could be avoided. The officers returned and Anderson responded that unless he received “controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies,” and was not attacked, he would leave at noon on April 15. But with one of the relief ships already just outside the harbor’s entrance, the response was unacceptable. Anderson was informed that Fort Sumter would be fired upon beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12.

Sumter Bombardment


Firing the First Shot

First Shot
Find out who had the distinction of firing the first shot »

At the designated time, a 10-inch mortar shell, fired from Fort Johnson, exploded over Fort Sumter, beginning the Civil War. Soon, 43 Confederate guns and mortars opened fire from all directions. At about 7:00 a.m., Anderson responded in kind, with Capt. Abner Doubleday commanding the first gun that fired in defense of the Union.


Actually when Confederate cadets fired on the civilian supply ship "Star of the West" that in itself could have been interpreted as an act of war.
http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/winter-2010/problem-in-charleston-harbor.html

If the Confederate commander had kept his word Ft Sumpter would have been evacuated on the 15th without blood shed.


There are a lot of things that could of happened, so the idea that everything that could of happened did happen is completely false.
Only for those living in a dream world.



In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the United States had expended roughly $200,000, one Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the "land" which included the under-construction fort.
A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land - but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land - except that the "land" was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
The result was a state law:


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.

Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!

Indian Givers?

[dlbarr]

...As for the Fort, the SECOND that South Carolina left the Union, that fort and all others within her borders became the property of South Carolina and the Confederacy. The Union had illegally occupied that fort for 4-5 months after it no longer belonged to them. The Confederacy rightfully removed foreign invaders from their soil.....



Let's consider for a minute the facts about that fort and its rightful ownership. South Carolina had ceded to the Federal govt the property on which Fort Sumpter stood. Now, when you 'cede' something, you relinquish or grant to another party all claims to said property. I'm in agreement that S.C. had every right to secede from the Union and should have been allowed to go peacefully along with all the other southern states. But that particular property no longer belonged to S.C. even though it was located within its borders. That doesn't make secession invalid, but does make it a bit problematic when you have possession of something that doesn't belong to you and you can't get rid of it.

If we're going to talk about the freedom to do what we want, we have to accept that others likewise have the same freedom - like holding on to their own property.

[Handloader109]

Go back and see. I never praised Lincoln or his actions. I just said we won and ruled over the south and I understand why Southerners did not like that. By the way I was born in Mass. I was raised in rural central Maine, we moved their when I was 6. I have seen the U.S. from many different vantage points. I have lived in Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, and California beside Mass and Maine.

Tim

Tim,I ask you to look at your post............what one word stands out?

Look close and read it slowly.....

Didnt find it?


Look again! Read it slowly you carpetbagger:-!


Find it yet?


Want me to tell you what that one word is?


It is only two letters.....



Find it yet?



OK
I
Will
Tell
You



It is the word WE!


"We won". If the Yankees really wanted to unite the country, then thoughts like this would have gone away a long time ago. If you are a true American, that whole statement stinks and flies in the face of every person born in the south. THIS is one of the reasons that the south despises the revisionists, I.e. most of the education system in the country. Oh, a bit of my history, all my ancestors that I have researched came across the ocean well after the war was over. But it still irks me the way the country is divided and makes assumptions about the south.

[TXGunNut]

According to my brother's genealogy research my ancestors fought on both sides of the war of northern aggression but as a result of my birth in TN and upbringing in TX I understand and sympathize with southern views. My parents were both born & raised in NE and neither gave this conflict much thought so it wasn't discussed much in our home. I did enjoy the state-required Texas history classes in 7th grade, my interest in history was probably born in that class. I never had a truly good instructor until I went back to college about 20 years ago and was lucky enough to have an instructor who taught contrary to the revisionist view. She was from Mississippi and told us that at that time her home state was still going thru reconstruction even tho it had officially ended decades before. In those years I spent enough time in MS to know she was right. For all I know it's still going on there, perhaps other places as well.
I'd like to thank Prof Graff for the history lesson, much of it I have only heard and read bits and pieces here and there and his posts helped those pieces fit together better.
FWIW the Texas mindset is about more than those five terrible years and the reconstruction period that followed. The same can be said for much of the South but some folks will never understand and my composition skills are inadequate when I try to explain it, I seldom try. As the T-shirt says; its a Texas thang, you wouldn't understand.

[Char-Gar]

However, I'm disappointed that you feel that this country is still divided because of the Civil War. My angst is not focused on you, Charles- I just don't want this country to be divided period- for any reason. At the very least, it spells economic instability- I give you our current body politic as clear evidence. Europe and the Euro is a complimentary analogy. I will ask you one last question of conjecture though. If Texas was independent, what would Texas do without the Chicago Mercantile/COBT? I have my own ideas but I'd like to hear yours. No challenge intended- this is in the spirit of honest discourse.

Shabbat Shalom!

Economics, trade and such related items are not my long suit. I will offer the following as a response to your questions and statements.

1. Where you live, where you were raised and who your family is/was will decide on whether or not you think the country is divided. Most white people don't think racism is a problem in this country, but most black people do. Most folks with no Southern heritage, feel there is no problem as they won the war and don't feel the angst of being defeated. Folks who have no Southern heritage and live outside the South don't see the consistent attacks on Confederate history by the political correct crowd.

If you are black, Hispanic or traditional Southern, you will view life in America quite different from you. So there is no need to be "disappointed", as your disappointment comes from a point of view not shared by me and millions more. The old idea of the melting pot which produces generic Americans has never been true. We are a loose association of many different kinds of people, divided by race, ethnicity, geography, weather patterns, language, heritage and politics. The notion that we are all one, is a head in the sand approach. Just turn on the news and listen for an hour and you will realize were are not a unified nation. We are very much divided with the heritage of the Civil War, being just one of them. This is just an unpleasant reality and disappointing if you live in a fantasy world.

2. If Texas were an independent state it would develop it's own economic and trade institutions as they became necessary. Every other nation on earth has survived without the COBT, so it is not essential to nationhood.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

If you condone the assassination of people you don't like, it paves the way for them to progress to people you don't care one way or the other about, and eventually those you like. If anybody meets that description.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

If you are black, Hispanic or traditional Southern, you will view life in America quite different from you.

That sounds a slightly schizophrenic exercise.

[Char-Gar]

That sounds a slightly schizophrenic exercise.

I note with interest that recently there was a vote in Scotland to separate from Great Britain and return to a fully sovereign Scotland. Were the folks in favor of Scottish independence schizophrenic? I would doubt it, they were just folks who were different from the Brits, with their own history, tradition and culture who wanted to go it alone. Recognizing differences within a country is not a symptom of schizophrenia. It is a reality based observation.

Great Britain is rife with many of the same divisions we have in the US. The divisions there produce far more violence than the division we have here. I am talking about the IRA in Ulster and the Muzzies hacking up British soldiers in the streets, plus many more.

I know you like to wax eloquent on the US and how the thinking of some members of this board is askew, but you really should clean your own house first before you become a commentator on our sins.

[Char-Gar]

DCP....Personal attacks on me do nothing to inform or advance the discussion of the topic at hand. Such attacks however do earn you an honored spot on my Ignore List and there you shall remain.

[texaswoodworker]

Let's consider for a minute the facts about that fort and its rightful ownership. South Carolina had ceded to the Federal govt the property on which Fort Sumpter stood. Now, when you 'cede' something, you relinquish or grant to another party all claims to said property. I'm in agreement that S.C. had every right to secede from the Union and should have been allowed to go peacefully along with all the other southern states. But that particular property no longer belonged to S.C. even though it was located within its borders. That doesn't make secession invalid, but does make it a bit problematic when you have possession of something that doesn't belong to you and you can't get rid of it.

If we're going to talk about the freedom to do what we want, we have to accept that others likewise have the same freedom - like holding on to their own property.

Did the British not have forts and bases within the borders of the Colonies? Those sure aren't in their possession today.


Actually when Confederate cadets fired on the civilian supply ship "Star of the West" that in itself could have been interpreted as an act of war.
http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/winter-2010/problem-in-charleston-harbor.html

If the Confederate commander had kept his word Ft Sumpter would have been evacuated on the 15th without blood shed.


Only for those living in a dream world.


Indian Givers?

Star of the West? You mean that ship that was carrying more troops and supplies into SOUTHERN territory? That was an act of war and was rightfully seen as an invasion.


Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President James Buchanan’s response to the growing crisis was to send the civilian ship, Star of the West, with troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. Citadel cadets assigned to a battery on Morris Island and troops at Fort Moultrie fired upon the ship on January 9, and it turned back without accomplishing its mission.

Furthermore, that agreement was not acceptable. Plus, the actions of the Northern military and Government show that they had no intention of giving up that fort without a fight. They were bringing in more troops and supplies, along with authorizing them to attack should anyone demand the surrender of the fort.


Two days later, Maj. Don Carlos Buell delivered verbal instructions from Secretary of War John B. Floyd to Anderson, stating that “an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them [the forts] will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance.” Prompted by South Carolina’s secession on December 20, the commencement of state patrol boats operating between Forts Sumter and Moultrie, the size of his garrison and the growing threat of hostile action, Anderson transferred his command to Fort Sumter on the night of December 26, 1860.


the garrison never would have surrendered without a fight.


On December 27, Francis Pickens, the newly elected governor of South Carolina, demanded that Anderson return to Fort Moultrie. The major refused.


As March turned to April, Fort Sumter began running low on rations and, following much deliberation, Lincoln decided to re-supply and hold the fort. On April 4, Secretary of War Simon Cameron sent a message to Anderson that a naval expedition would attempt the action, “and, in case the effort is resisted…to reinforce you.”


The next day, April 11, members of Beauregard’s staff arrived at Fort Sumter demanding its evacuation. Again, Anderson refused,

He was given plenty of warning to leave, and he refused.


The officers returned and Anderson responded that unless he received “controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies,” and was not attacked, he would leave at noon on April 15. But with one of the relief ships already just outside the harbor’s entrance, the response was unacceptable. Anderson was informed that Fort Sumter would be fired upon beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12.

It doesn't matter if he agreed to a time that he would leave, the South never agreed to those terms, making your argument completely invalid.

As for the bloodshed, no one was killed in the battle. The only person to die was a Union private because a gun discharged prematurely during the surrender ceremony.

As for seeing the very real possibility that the South could have won as being a dream, you have thoroughly proved your ignorance on the matter with that statement.

[ofitg]

I'll stand with Judge Andrew Napolitano on this one -

"The Revolutionary War was the beginning of the Republic and the Civil War was the beginning of the end of the Republic."

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/099449-2011-11-13-so-long-america-by-judge-andrew-napolitano.htm

[Char-Gar]

I'll stand with Judge Andrew Napolitano on this one -

"The Revolutionary War was the beginning of the Republic and the Civil War was the beginning of the end of the Republic."

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/099449-2011-11-13-so-long-america-by-judge-andrew-napolitano.htm


The good Judge is a Confederate whether he knows it or not..

The Revolutionary War was the beginning of the Republic and the Civil War was the beginning of the end of the Republic. Prior to the Civil War, the United States were plural; the country was called "these" United States. Even the Constitution refers to the United States as "them." Afterwards, the United States became a singular noun. The Civil War was the official and violent rejection by the federal government of the basic principle laid out in the Declaration of Independence which was cited as the impetus for the American Revolution. What was that principle for which the rebels fought and which, among our presidents, only Jefferson defended? It was the right of free people to secede from a government that destroys their freedom. It was, by extension, the natural right to be left alone.

[ofitg]

It should be noted that Union forces arrested Jefferson Davis after the fighting ended. After keeping him locked up for two years, and studying a quarter-million captured Confederate documents, they finally concluded that they could not bring him to trial for any crime.

So they let him go.

As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase said at the time, “If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-civil-war-was-secession-legal

[dlbarr]

Did the British not have forts and bases within the borders of the Colonies? Those sure aren't in their possession today.
.

TWW, you have somewhat of a point. There is, however, a difference in that the colonists (to my knowledge) did not insist that those forts now belonged to them & their country. April 19, 1775 - the first battles of AWI, remember the quote: "Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want war, let it begin here." I know that it is unclear who actually fired the first shot, but the leadership of the defending forces did not lead by initiating the fight. The South cannot claim that.

Remember, my post said that the location and actual ownership of Sumter was problematic for South Carolina. And it was. The sad truth is that both North & South failed at diplomacy on this crucial issue. Did one side fail more than the other? Everyone has their opinion on that.

[texaswoodworker]

TWW, you have somewhat of a point. There is, however, a difference in that the colonists (to my knowledge) did not insist that those forts now belonged to them & their country. April 19, 1775 - the first battles of AWI, remember the quote: "Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want war, let it begin here." I know that it is unclear who actually fired the first shot, but the leadership of the defending forces did not lead by initiating the fight. The South cannot claim that.

Remember, my post said that the location and actual ownership of Sumter was problematic for South Carolina. And it was. The sad truth is that both North & South failed at diplomacy on this crucial issue. Did one side fail more than the other? Everyone has their opinion on that.

And the North cannot claim that they didn't commit acts of war before the first shots were fired. The South was fully within their rights to open fire on a foreign invader.

[dlbarr]

And the North cannot claim that they didn't commit acts of war before the first shots were fired. The South was fully within their rights to open fire on a foreign invader.

Call me slow on this, but what were the acts of war to which you refer?

[texaswoodworker]

Occupying foreign territory without that Nation's permission, and attempting to bring more troops and supplies into a foreign Nation without their permission (AKA, an invasion). Within a week of Fort Sumter's surrender, Lincoln (illegally) authorized the blockading of Southern Ports. The North didn't care for peace. They wanted to control the South, plain and simple. Even if the South hadn't fired on them at Fort Sumter, the war would have happened anyway by the Union's hand.

[Duckiller]

The war was over 150 years ago. Texans claim they are now changing laws put in during reconstruction. After 140 years , REALLY. Are Texans that slow? Blaming any condition that exists now on the Civil War doesn't make much sense. It was over 150 years ago. Get over it and get on with your lives. I am 72 years old and 3 generations removed from that unpleasantness. The only people that are still effected by the war are black because they are no longer slaves. If you think you are still effected by the war you need serious counselling. Get on with your lives.

[Char-Gar]

The war was over 150 years ago. Texans claim they are now changing laws put in during reconstruction. After 140 years , REALLY. Are Texans that slow? Blaming any condition that exists now on the Civil War doesn't make much sense. It was over 150 years ago. Get over it and get on with your lives. I am 72 years old and 3 generations removed from that unpleasantness. The only people that are still effected by the war are black because they are no longer slaves. If you think you are still effected by the war you need serious counselling. Get on with your lives.

Insults to Texas, get over it and get on with life, you need counseling, has all been said before in this thread. Do you have anything new to add, other than throwing the same old spit wads.

[HarryT]

These people must be Rebels since they are walking on the Union's flag:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/18/valdosta-state-university-students-spend-three-days-stomping-on-u-s-flag-veteran-arrested-trying-to-remove-flag-video/#more-99628
I guess they don't know where their government checks come from.

[dtknowles]

I think the often used expression "War of Northern Aggression" is accurate. I think the north would have invaded the south eventually anyway so it does not matter to me who might have fired the first shot or provided the first provocation. If the Confederacy was its own country and did not have an adequate military to defend their territory they were a potential target for conquest by stronger nations. That the stronger nation that conquered them was the United States of America. You may legally have had the right of succession but to remain an independent country you have to be able to defend your territory. It was a different time an place and expansion of a county thru conquest was an acceptable process. The Confederacy was conquered by the U.S.A and became part of the expanding nation we see now. The way the U.S.A. handled the occupation was possibly abusive but the conquered often think such things of the conquerors.

Tim

[dlbarr]

Occupying foreign territory without that Nation's permission, and attempting to bring more troops and supplies into a foreign Nation without their permission (AKA, an invasion). Within a week of Fort Sumter's surrender, Lincoln (illegally) authorized the blockading of Southern Ports. The North didn't care for peace. They wanted to control the South, plain and simple. Even if the South hadn't fired on them at Fort Sumter, the war would have happened anyway by the Union's hand.

Nobody was occupying foreign territory. Fort Sumter was owned by the US and had a right to station troops there and to defend their property.

Anderson called for provisions as they were nearly out of food. Yes, I know, there was additional armament being sent along with the additional troops. What would S.C. expect? If the table were turned, they'd just walk away & hand over their property to someone else? Don't think so. Having those provisions sent by a civilian ship was likely a gesture to indicate no hostile intent as there would be no way to respond if fired upon which, as you know, did happen by confederate forces and those supplies never reached Sumter.

Did anyone back then really believe that the US intended to shell Charleston to bits from those forts in the harbor? Seems a nonsensical thing to me.

Blockading Southern Ports....what else could be expected when you get shot at & robbed? If you know where the offender is, you go back and get even with the intent to eventually recover your stuff. Not sure what is "illegal" about that - War had been initiated. The move by Anderson from Moultrie to Sumter was not an aggressive move, it was defensive and both forts were the property of the US anyway. First shots were fired by the South and went unanswered by Feds for a couple hours. There was no rational reason for Beauregard to direct an attack at that point in time.

Again, I believe secession was and is within the rights of States. But the hostilities were initiated by the South because they took offense to US being on US property which was, unfortunately within SC borders. I told you it was problematic. But, the old saying: "Wisdom is the better part of valor" usually gets ignored and this is another case of that.

Maintaining that the North "would've done it anyway" seems a hollow excuse in the light of 620,000 dead Americans. There is enough blame to go around, North & South. Both dismal failures at diplomacy. Both subjected their citizenry to hardships at the hands of politicians.

In short, I don't think the North committed acts of war that precipitated the South's firing on the Star of the West or on Fort Sumter. That does not mean that I think the North to have been full of pure motives.

[Duckiller]

Char-Gar I always thought you were a reasonable, intelligent, polite person. Evidently you are not. Good By.

[Hamish]

I find these kind of arguments very much like Charles explained it, very much like why libs just don't get it.

i just took a "Where are you from" test on Facebook. I'm not, but I lived there working as a hunting guide for a while, and if I hadn't had two heat strokes I'd be there now,,,,,,

Texas.

[texaswoodworker]

These people must be Rebels since they are walking on the Union's flag:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/18/valdosta-state-university-students-spend-three-days-stomping-on-u-s-flag-veteran-arrested-trying-to-remove-flag-video/#more-99628
I guess they don't know where their government checks come from.

What does that have to do with this discussion? Liberals burned the flag in the 60s, does that make them Rebels too, or is this just a poorly executed attempt at insulting people you don't agree with? I might not agree with what the US did back then, but I still honor that flag.

Nobody was occupying foreign territory. Fort Sumter was owned by the US and had a right to station troops there and to defend their property.

Anderson called for provisions as they were nearly out of food. Yes, I know, there was additional armament being sent along with the additional troops. What would S.C. expect? If the table were turned, they'd just walk away & hand over their property to someone else? Don't think so. Having those provisions sent by a civilian ship was likely a gesture to indicate no hostile intent as there would be no way to respond if fired upon which, as you know, did happen by confederate forces and those supplies never reached Sumter.

Did anyone back then really believe that the US intended to shell Charleston to bits from those forts in the harbor? Seems a nonsensical thing to me.

Blockading Southern Ports....what else could be expected when you get shot at & robbed? If you know where the offender is, you go back and get even with the intent to eventually recover your stuff. Not sure what is "illegal" about that - War had been initiated. The move by Anderson from Moultrie to Sumter was not an aggressive move, it was defensive and both forts were the property of the US anyway. First shots were fired by the South and went unanswered by Feds for a couple hours. There was no rational reason for Beauregard to direct an attack at that point in time.

Again, I believe secession was and is within the rights of States. But the hostilities were initiated by the South because they took offense to US being on US property which was, unfortunately within SC borders. I told you it was problematic. But, the old saying: "Wisdom is the better part of valor" usually gets ignored and this is another case of that.

Maintaining that the North "would've done it anyway" seems a hollow excuse in the light of 620,000 dead Americans. There is enough blame to go around, North & South. Both dismal failures at diplomacy. Both subjected their citizenry to hardships at the hands of politicians.

In short, I don't think the North committed acts of war that precipitated the South's firing on the Star of the West or on Fort Sumter. That does not mean that I think the North to have been full of pure motives.

Those are your opinions, I disagree for the most part. I'll leave it at that because I'm not going to change your mind, and your not going to change mine. Fair enough?


Char-Gar I always thought you were a reasonable, intelligent, polite person. Evidently you are not. Good By.

Well, so much for a civil discussion...

[dtknowles]

....Look again! Read it slowly you carpetbagger:-! .........


I expect that the insult is deliberate I don't recognize the emoticon but I think it might be angry. It think I am to late to be a carpetbagger. My time in the South has made the place better. NASA decided (LBJ mostly) that the South needed some government assistance to create good jobs so it put Space centers in poor southern communities, I fill the need that those communities have for engineering talent that they can't find locally.



......."We won". If the Yankees really wanted to unite the country, then thoughts like this would have gone away a long time ago..............reasons that the south despises the revisionists, ................

The U.S.A. was reunited and grew even larger. Still a few Rebels around who did not get fully on board with the new order but they were never too numerous and they get less all the time. As far as revisionist, I guess you were addressing someone else. I don't think I disputed any historical fact you might have presented or is there some historical fact I presented you believe is not true?

Tim

[Thumbcocker]

I have just been reading up on the actual mechanics of secession. Fascinating stuff. Texas was the only state to let the people decide the issue directly. Also didn't know how close Georgia came to staying with the union or that Stephens (later confederate vp) spoke eloquently against Georgia leaving the union.

[A pause for the COZ]

I am kind of a middle of the road guy.
I agree that Lincoln damaged this country immensely by eroding states rights.
But I also do not cut the south any credit ether. That whole line about we wre only fighting to protect states rights was/ is Hog Wash.

The civil war was fought to correct a grievous error that was made to get South Carolina to agree to join the Union in the first place. Slavery
It was a thorn in the side of the American soul from the day of its inception.

The Civil War may have solved some of the issues, but it broke so much more.
It may have been what kept us together, but the loss of states rights may be what tears us apart.

If Slavery was not the issue. The North could/ would never have been able to take the high road. Never would have been able to do any of the things it did.
So in my opinion the Civil War was 100% about Slavery. Every thing else involved was collateral.

[starmac]

Char-Gar I always thought you were a reasonable, intelligent, polite person. Evidently you are not. Good By.

Man, you sure know how to hurt a guys feelings. lol

[dlbarr]

Those are your opinions, I disagree for the most part. I'll leave it at that because I'm not going to change your mind, and your not going to change mine. Fair enough?




Yep. That's fair enough. I'm interested in open & honest discourse w/o the insults to heritage, parentage and so on. Hopefully, I've been consistent with that. You certainly have been. Appreciate the dialogue, TWW.

[dlbarr]

I have just been reading up on the actual mechanics of secession. Fascinating stuff. Texas was the only state to let the people decide the issue directly. Also didn't know how close Georgia came to staying with the union or that Stephens (later confederate vp) spoke eloquently against Georgia leaving the union.

What's interesting also about Texas, is that Gov. Sam Huston was strongly against secession. But, it still happened.

Agree with secession or not, that is a government by the people.

[Hannibal]

The Civil War may have solved some of the issues, but it broke so much more.
It may have been what kept us together, but the loss of states rights may be what tears us apart.



Yes, I hacked your post down considerably. But I believe these 2 sentences are among the most noteworthy points in this entire thread.

[texaswoodworker]

I am kind of a middle of the road guy.
I agree that Lincoln damaged this country immensely by eroding states rights.
But I also do not cut the south any credit ether. That whole line about we wre only fighting to protect states rights was/ is Hog Wash.

The civil war was fought to correct a grievous error that was made to get South Carolina to agree to join the Union in the first place. Slavery
It was a thorn in the side of the American soul from the day of its inception.

The Civil War may have solved some of the issues, but it broke so much more.
It may have been what kept us together, but the loss of states rights may be what tears us apart.

If Slavery was not the issue. The North could/ would never have been able to take the high road. Never would have been able to do any of the things it did.
So in my opinion the Civil War was 100% about Slavery. Every thing else involved was collateral.

Do you really think thousands of poor southerners really cared if a rich man kept his slaves? They could barely afford shoes. They fought for their homes and freedom, nothing else.

The North didn't care either. Lincoln only banned slavery in the South, two years after the war began. None of the propaganda posters talked about freeing the slaves. They all talked about reuniting the Union. Some high ranking politicians in the Union owned slaves after the war and had to be forced to free them. Lee on the other hand freed all his slaves before the war.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a ***** and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, 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 the government...We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be let alone." - Patrick R. Cleburne

"What are you fighting for anyhow?

I'm fighting because you are down here." - Confederate prisoner to Union soldier


The idea that the Civil War was fought solely, or even mainly over slavery is an outright lie.

[texaswoodworker]

Yep. That's fair enough. I'm interested in open & honest discourse w/o the insults to heritage, parentage and so on. Hopefully, I've been consistent with that. You certainly have been. Appreciate the dialogue, TWW.

No problem. Thank you for the good debate. :)

[waksupi]

Do you really think thousands of poor southerners really cared if a rich man kept his slaves? They could barely afford shoes. They fought for their homes and freedom, nothing else.

The North didn't care either. Lincoln only banned slavery in the South, two years after the war began. None of the propaganda posters talked about freeing the slaves. They all talked about reuniting the Union. Some high ranking politicians in the Union owned slaves after the war and had to be forced to free them. Lee on the other hand freed all his slaves before the war.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a ***** and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, 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 the government...We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be let alone." - Patrick R. Cleburne

"What are you fighting for anyhow?

I'm fighting because you are down here." - Confederate prisoner to Union soldier


The idea that the Civil War was fought solely, or even mainly over slavery is an outright lie.

True. What nudged Lincoln over the edge, was the north was fairing rather badly, and the citizens were getting war-weary. He figured by freeing the slaves, he would revive some of the fervor for the war, and hoped that the blacks would join the Union forces to replenish his dwindling troops.

[starmac]

By many reports I have read over the years, their were more slaves in the north than the south, just different color and called a different name, but slaves for all intents and purposes.

[A pause for the COZ]

Do you really think thousands of poor southerners really cared if a rich man kept his slaves? They could barely afford shoes. They fought for their homes and freedom, nothing else.

Nooo of course not. The plantation owners and power brokers from the south could never have gotten any one to enlist if they told them that.

It was much more serviceable and effective to play the States rights card.
Do you really think any of the poor young whites, who by and large could not even read.
Had any ideas other than what they were told were the reasons they were fighting?

Basically, the south used the same nationalistic fervor that Europe was using to gain public support.
But in this instance it was states rights fervor.
I doubt most Germans had any idea's other than what they were told as they headed off to meet the French.
Obviously its allot more complicated than that. Northern industrialist hated that the south could under cut prices by way of much lower labor costs.
Just about every entity on both sides had their own personal agenda all mixed in.

The only point I was making was. The Slavery issue gave pretext and cover for many nefarious actions.
Less the institution of slavery. The problems would have had to be ironed out in some other way.
Maybe war.. But I doubt it.

[A pause for the COZ]

By many reports I have read over the years, their were more slaves in the north than the south, just different color and called a different name, but slaves for all intents and purposes.

This is very very true. That is actually how my Family got here.
My Great Grand parents were basically tricked by American industrialist.
Sold a bill of goods to the poor of Finland.
Stuck on a ship and delivered to Northern MN to work in the iron mines.
Once there they found they owed more to the company store for passage and room and board, Tools ect.
They were for all intents indentured servants. Not quite slaves but certainly not free.
Of course they could leave at any time, as soon as the bill was settled.

Power Brokers are stinkers, no matter were they hail. Its all about exploiting another for their gain.
They are still doing it, only now they have a smaller world. So instead of shipping in the workers. they ship out the jobs.

[texaswoodworker]

Nooo of course not. The plantation owners and power brokers from the south could never have gotten any one to enlist if they told them that.

It was much more serviceable and effective to play the States rights card.
Do you really think any of the poor young whites, who by and large could not even read.
Had any ideas other than what they were told were the reasons they were fighting?

Basically, the south used the same nationalistic fervor that Europe was using to gain public support.
But in this instance it was states rights fervor.
I doubt most Germans had any idea's other than what they were told as they headed off to meet the French.
Obviously its allot more complicated than that. Northern industrialist hated that the south could under cut prices by way of much lower labor costs.
Just about every entity on both sides had their own personal agenda all mixed in.

The only point I was making was. The Slavery issue gave pretext and cover for many nefarious actions.
Less the institution of slavery. The problems would have had to be ironed out in some other way.
Maybe war.. But I doubt it.

All the Southerner's knew was that there was a bunch of Yankees invading their homes, and committing horrific crimes (Sherman).

History does not agree with your claims at all. It's very clear why Lincoln waged war and slavery was only a scapegoat. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was legal in border states that still belonged to the UNION. Pick up a history book that actually covers all aspects of the war, not just the parts the libtards want you to know about. You'll see why that war was fought, and that slavery was only a minor issue compared to the real reasons.

[A pause for the COZ]

Yes, I hacked your post down considerably. But I believe these 2 sentences are among the most noteworthy points in this entire thread.

I believe that too. The cost of that terrible terrible war. Have yet to be fully tallied.
States Rights, the idea that we are a collection of individual Sovereign states.
Is what made us great and unique in the world.
The Federal Gov had very very limited power. That is no more.

When I reflect... I find my self happy the North won( we are still united). But very very sad the South lost ( we are united too much).
Weird huh??

[A pause for the COZ]

All the Southerner's knew was that there was a bunch of Yankees invading their homes, and committing horrific crimes (Sherman).

Thats true, but that was late in the war after it was determined that Total war was required to win.
The reasons a war starts are usually quite different than how they end. They tend to get way out of hand.

I do agree with you on more than one item. It is true there has always been a powerful faction in the north that never believed in separate states.
They wanted a strong central Government.
Washington fought them, Jefferson fought them, Hamilton was certainly one of them. Andrew Jackson damn near went to Civil war over it.
They are still there. Working to take our freedom.

The Slavery issue is still the Crux of it. I am in no way saying the North was free of Sin.
But what they did have and given freely by South Carolina was the moral high ground.
What would our world be like today. If in 1859 if South Carolina would have agreed to Phase out the institution of Slavery?
It would have irrevocably shifted the Moral high ground to the south.
The Northern bankers could have never gotten what they wanted.

Of course thats just my opinion ( Guess). We cant actually go back in time and see.

[dlbarr]

The reason(s) for going to war for Southerners actually depended on WHO you were. As previously stated here in this thread, the common southern man didn't & couldn't own slaves. He only knew that his homeland was besieged and he was going to defend it.

However, and this goes back to my earlier point that the general citizenry of both North & South were used by the political machines of the day, the primary states rights in consideration was the institution of slavery. The following declarations indicate the specificity of concern about "loss of slavery" by the elite, the political class. So when they say it was economic concerns, the loss of slavery was far & away the primary factor that would adversely affect their economy. I believe it was Mississippi that said something like "a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce". Take a look at the Confederate Constitution...the Bill of Rights, 3 of the first 4 deal with protection of the holding of slaves. Anyway, there is loads of other data, copies of speeches given by emissaries sent from states already seceded to those who were being encouraged to come along - all of them have a strong message of: "your right to hold slaves is in jeopardy". And, of course, it's the political elite class that pounded that message home.


http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

For the North, the reason for War was the egotistical issue of so-called "union". Which really means control which is what politicians like to do anyway. But the northern elite had no heart for the slave, really. Enough of the general populace (read 'VOTES') of the north had a concern for the slave so it was expedient for the new republican party to make "abolition" a major part of their platform. The message was, we won't change slavery where it already is, but we won't allow it to spread to new territories. There's not much evidence of any love lost on the slave by Northerners. So, once again, the elite political class, for its own purposes & personal gains drives societies into war and the common folk get used as cannon fodder.

My opinion: [most of] the big shots on both sides of the line were disingenuous and cared only about their agenda. Had the South been allowed to peacefully secede (if they would have), over time I believe there would have been enough relationship to allow commerce & friendship to rebuild and the institution of slavery would have met its real demise much sooner. And I believe our countries would have reunited voluntarily.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I note with interest that recently there was a vote in Scotland to separate from Great Britain and return to a fully sovereign Scotland. Were the folks in favor of Scottish independence schizophrenic? I would doubt it, they were just folks who were different from the Brits, with their own history, tradition and culture who wanted to go it alone. Recognizing differences within a country is not a symptom of schizophrenia. It is a reality based observation.

Great Britain is rife with many of the same divisions we have in the US. The divisions there produce far more violence than the division we have here. I am talking about the IRA in Ulster and the Muzzies hacking up British soldiers in the streets, plus many more.

I know you like to wax eloquent on the US and how the thinking of some members of this board is askew, but you really should clean your own house first before you become a commentator on our sins.

Six words are eloquent? I wasn't really trying.

Death rate by intentional homicide, 1.0 per hundred thousand people. Not that I claim any special credit for that. Anybody could do it, although it might make sense to start from a while back. In the worst of times in Northern Ireland, which were successfully brought to a close, it never rose higher than in the very similar population of Detroit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I'm inclined to think secession was indeed legal. But something peaceful would have had to be done eventually, to put pressure on the second-last nation in the Western Hemisphere to permit slavery. We can compare the enormous influx of investment capital into Argentina, with the economic stagnation of Brazil.

Whatever the reasons for the war, and the legality of secession, slavery was undoubtedly (a different thing) the central issue. It was the reason why no sovereign state ever recognized the Confederacy, and the Union blockade remained unbroken. Nobody can deny the ability of the Confederate troops or commanders to defer the results of the Confederacy's numerical and economic weakness. When I read, quite a number of years back, about the campaigns of Lee and Jackson, I thought that he may have been the only American general with the greatness to beat Napoleon on one of his good days. It doesn't take much, in war, for the weaker side to win in those circumstances. But it was the certain isolation of a mostly pre-Industrial Revolution country which made the war an extremely unwise thing to get into. The South would have done far better to announce in advance a schedule for progressive abolition, civil rights and compensation of slaveowners.

Incidentally the South didn't fire the first shot at Sumter, although it may have fired the first shots intended (if they were) to hit anybody. One of the defending officers, in the "Century" magazine's "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War" series, describes how they set up a ten-inch Columbiad cannon of the Rodman system as a mortar, to fire over the walls at an angle of around 45º, without a vulnerable embrasure, in case it became necessary to shell Charleston. The usual practice with mortars, probably the most accurate of smoothbore artillery when purpose-built, was to use this elevation all the time, and adjust range by varying the charge.

There being no direct line of sight, only a practice shot with a ‘blind’ shell could verify azimuth alignment. As the Union was anxious to avoid being seen as commencing hostilities, it was thought that 2lb. of powder, instead of the 18lb. which was used to achieve the gun’s normal trajectory, could not send the shell far enough to be mistaken for a shot fired in earnest.

In fact the shell carried extremely well, covering so much of the four miles to the city that the defenders of Sumter had to do some fast talking. The charge was only two hundred times that which might send a .45-70 bullet about a mile and a half, and we might conjecture from the reaction of Charleston’s defenders that the shell did not travel much less than half this distance. Apparently, though, the authorities in Charleston were very good about it, and accepted it as an accident.

[smokeywolf]

Yes just as the colonies were possessions of the British Crown, Sumter was was a possession of the United States. And just as the Colonists had no right to kick the Brits out of what the King saw as domain of the Crown, the Confederacy had no right to kick the Yankees out of what they perceived to be their domain.

The similarities are striking.

The North struck the first blow by locking up their monopoly on manufactured products when they imposed exorbitant taxes and tariffs on all imported manufactured goods. By those actions the North had already begun a political and financial war on the South.

Any attempt to spin the motives and actions taken by the South to be anything other than defensive, shows obvious bias and intent to ignore the attempt of Northern big business to fatten their purses on the back of the South and Northern politicians at the behest of those big businesses to establish a stranglehold on Southern labor and resources.

To ignore the greed of the Northern business concerns and the manipulation of Northern politicians as being the primary cause and the initial aggression that resulted in "the war between the States", is nothing but an attempt by the irrational to win an argument by choosing to acknowledge only those factors and conditions that support their opinion while ignoring those that don't.

smokeywolf

[DCP]

So the war continues after 150 yrs

We cant even agree who started it.
The South did fire the first shots. That the North wanted them to.

Lincoln is a hero to some, as is Booth

Just like the Civil WAR was tragic so is this thread (why is it not in the Pit)

I can see now why the North treated the South so badly after the war.

Till this thread I used to think Southern pride was a Good thing.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Yes just as the colonies were possessions of the British Crown, Sumter was was a possession of the United States. And just as the Colonists had no right to kick the Brits out of what the King saw as domain of the Crown, the Confederacy had no right to kick the Yankees out of what they perceived to be their domain.

The similarities are striking.

The North struck the first blow by locking up their monopoly on manufactured products when they imposed exorbitant taxes and tariffs on all imported manufactured goods. By those actions the North had already begun a political and financial war on the South.

Any attempt to spin the motives and actions taken by the South to be anything other than defensive, shows obvious bias and intent to ignore the attempt of Northern big business to fatten their purses on the back of the South and Northern politicians at the behest of those big businesses to establish a stranglehold on Southern labor and resources.

To ignore the greed of the Northern business concerns and the manipulation of Northern politicians as being the primary cause and the initial aggression that resulted in "the war between the States", is nothing but an attempt by the irrational to win an argument by choosing to acknowledge only those factors and conditions that support their opinion while ignoring those that don't.

smokeywolf


"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
If it prosper, none durst call it treason."

The British colonists in America follow neatly in some four hundred years of rebellions against the Crown which have become seen as important advances in constitutional reform. Oliver Cromwell's post-Cromwellian statue is still outside the Houses of Parliament, and a direct descendent of George Washington sits upon our throne, but it is quite a while since anyone much resembling him sat on yours.

Of course the American brand of republican democracy has exerted a mostly benign influence in countries that never actually adopted it, even just as a competitor that seemed likely to offer severe competition in the marketplace. But then, you can say exactly the same for socialism.

Of course there was a need to do something about East India tea in Boston, before the populace found out that it was going to be cheaper than the same tea smuggled by John Hancock, after claiming back tax after exporting it to Holland. Oscar Wilde said that ignorance is like a delicate fruit. Touch it once, and the bloom is gone. That is not directly comparable with tariffs to increase the cost of southern goods. The latter was probably a better way than war to bring North American slavery to an end. Talleyrand, who remained French Foreign minister through decades when heads were tumbling at a very considerable rate, was once asked if he thought the execution of Louis XIV was a crime. He said "It was worse than that. It was a mistake."

If ignoring things is an issue, what about the Mansfield Decision in a British court in 1774, in which LordJustice Mansfield ruled that "the state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law... It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." That applied to the British mainland only, but the Acts of 1807 and 1833, for the Empire, were bound to follow, and that was the moment when Virginia and points south had a reason to fool Maryland and points north into something.

Not that that in itself - the fooling part, not the slavery - is worst than governments anywhere habitually do. Itjust seems naïve to imagine that they were better.

[Thumbcocker]

"The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end."

[Elkins45]

Had the ball taken a different bounce, the labels would be reversed.

The ball was never going to bounce the other way. CSA was a delusion from the inception. The south did not have the manufacturing base to build a modern society. The effort was doomed before Virginia ever secceeded. Lincoln wasn't the pure hero that history has painted him, but the two options of the civil war were one viable nation or two unviable ones.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

[Char-Gar]

Char-Gar I always thought you were a reasonable, intelligent, polite person. Evidently you are not. Good By.

I thought my response to your insults were reasonable,intelligent and polite. I suppose I should have mimicked you insults and ended with your admonition that you need counseling. Perhaps then, you would have thought better of my response.

[Char-Gar]

The ball was never going to bounce the other way. CSA was a delusion from the inception. The south did not have the manufacturing base to build a modern society. The effort was doomed before Virginia ever secceeded. Lincoln wasn't the pure hero that history has painted him, but the two options of the civil war were one viable nation or two unviable ones.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

The CSA might be considered delusional IF they intended to invade the United States and make protracted war again the same country. However, they didn't intent to do so, thinking secession was perfectly legal and would be an acceptable remedy for the injustices and abridgment of their freedoms they perceived.

They did fail to understanding Lincoln though. They thought he would follow the Constitution and laws of the United States and allow them to go in peace. All throughout the South, Federal military forces left Confederate soil and returned home, but the guy at Ft. Sumpter proved to be a resolute sort. I suppose that could be an admirable trait under other circumstances, but it did force the Confederate forces to take action.

My Great Grandfather was part of the force of Texas Rangers that surrounded the Alamo and forced the departure of the Federal forces there. This happened before Ft. Sumpter. Had the Federal General decided to make a fight of it, that is what happened.

He then joined the 1st. Texas Cav. who road up the Colorado River to require the Federal forces in garrisons there to depart as well. This the, did and took all their weapons with them and egresses Texas.

This could and should have been a peaceful and bloodless secession, but there was that guy at Ft. Sumpter and his boss Lincoln was primed for war and launched an invasion to protect the purses of the Yankee industrialists and fat cats.

You are quite correct, that is would have been delusional for the South to plan a war with the North, but that is not what they had planned. Lincoln proved to be the wild card.

That is a great pity and the initial subject of this thread, that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way in the storm of Confederate bashing. But Lincoln has taken quite a bashing as well, so I guess all is fair. When St. Abe is pulled down from the altar, the Lincolnites are sure to respond.

I for one, don't find the benediction of "well at the end we did have just one country" to be a solace. We could have just as well had two viable countries, had there been no war that bleed both. I consider the excuse that 150 years later, many are pleased with result not to be valid. I am wondering if 150 years from now, folks will look back at the multiple millions of descendants the the illegal aliens Obama legalized in contravention of the Constitution and law and think it all turned out well. For sure the descendants of the former illegals will not be happy when somebody hurls criticism at St. Barrack. The descendants of the folks here legally 150 years before won't think things turned out all that well, as they are stuck paying for the welfare benefits of the hoards.

[Multigunner]

Liberals stomping on the flag during the Viet Nam war were childish punks acting out, liberals who burned or bombed government buildings were criminals who were hunted down and when convicted went to prison.

A side note would be that the Confederacy began the practice of conscription in America. 80% of the population of the south had never ownwed a slave and were basically duped into supporting the institution that enriched those who profited from slavery.
The major reason for secession given by southern politicians was not about slavery in the Southern states, which was not in danger from US laws at the time, it was because congress intended to block expansion of the practice into the western territories.

Theres no room on this thread to post the relevant passages so I suggest anyone interested read this book.
"The Iron Furnace, or Slavery and Secession" by John H. Aughey
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38855?msg=welcome_stranger

[DCP]

So the war continues after 150 yrs

[Thumbcocker]

The respective articles and declarations of secession pretty well state the reasons.

[HarryT]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...eo/#more-99628 "What does that have to do with this discussion?"
Just pointing out the people President Lincoln supposedly fought the war for don't care for his country or the sacrifices his people made for them.
If the politicians of the 1860's could have seen into the future ...

[Char-Gar]

Gents...The war is quite over. It is done and the last shot fired. Lincoln and his forces won. Those are indisputable facts.

What this thread is about is a struggle for all of the history surrounding the war to be told. I have no problem with the Union facts being told. What I do have a problem with is the attempt to disallow Confederate history to be told fully in context with the history of the times.

Most people in this country and many participants in this thread, know nothing about the issue beyond what they were taught in the 9th grade which is;

1. The war was fought to free the slaves in the South.
2. The South stated the war.
3. The secession of the southern states was illegal
4. Lincoln was a high minded moral man whose Constitutional overreach was for the betterment of all and therefore to be not only tolerated, but lauded.

These asserted facts just are not true and a close examination of the men and events of the time will reveal that they are not true. These are just cover story and spin to justify the killing of 600,000 plus men in an illegal war put in place by Lincoln.

I respect people who honor their ancestors and history whether they wore the blue or the gray. All were honorable men, who fought and in some cases died, for a cause they thought worthy and noble. I have no desire to rob any of his honor, nor denigrate the suffering of their families.


What I object to, are those who would rob the Confederate veteran of his honor and denigrate the cause for which he fought based on a web of lies, put in place to cover up the criminal acts of Abraham Lincoln.

Let history be fully and completely told, and then let history be the judge.

During the course of this thread, I have been called bitter, angry, un-American and mentally dysfunctional in need of counseling and other less than positive things. I suppose I should be deeply offended by this, but I am not. I just understand it to be the last resort of people who don't have a rational argument but must resort to invective to justify their feelings and emotions.

The bottom line is a clear and unified history of the war as yet to be told. Until that happens some of us will struggle to rectify the false narrative accepted by so many.

[DCP]

Some people in this thread speak out of both sides of there mouth
They say the war is over but its not for them.

They think Texas is special, when it just one of 50 (They claim its a Texas Thing) and you need to live in Texas to understand. Just wow

[Char-Gar]

Some people in this thread speak out of both sides of there mouth
They say the war is over but its not for them.

They think Texas is special, when it just one of 50 (They claim its a Texas Thing) and you need to live in Texas to understand. Just wow

The personal attacks and insult continue, along with Texas bashing. So sad, are there any who can discuss without resorting to this low stuff?

[DCP]

The personal attacks and insult continue, along with Texas bashing. So sad, are there any who can discuss without resorting to this low stuff?

I wasn't talking about you. It just an observation

Vaya con Dios

[Ickisrulz]

They think Texas is special, when it just one of 50 (They claim its a Texas Thing) and you need to live in Texas to understand. Just wow

I have lived in six states. No where have I seen residents so proud of their state than in Texas. I have lived in some places where the residents expressed a hatred and dissatisfaction of their state. I suppose that says something. I actually prefer Oklahoma over Texas, but the two states are very similar.

This has been a great thread despite the disagreements and very eye opening. I appreciate the education.

[Char-Gar]

I have lived in six states. No where have I seen residents so proud of their state than in Texas. I have lived in some places where the residents expressed a hatred and dissatisfaction of their state. I suppose that says something. I actually prefer Oklahoma over Texas, but the two states are very similar.

This has been a great thread despite the disagreements and very eye opening. I appreciate the education.

Oklahoma is a great state with great people. Land is about half what it is in Texas and that make it very attractive. My Grandmother who raised me was born on the Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory, in 1892 and returned to Texas with her family in August of 1899.

I have lots of family still living in Oklahoma around the McAlester area. Great state and great people and yes they are very similar to those in Texas.

[dtknowles]

So the war continues after 150 yrs

More like Monday Morning Quarterbacking with the losers making excuses and talking about what might have been. The winners made this country into the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Booth made Lincoln a martyr and increased the Union's hatred of the Confederacy. Booth was a fool, a spy and an assassin.

The South's importation of manufactured good from overseas was like off-shoring jobs would be today. Of course the people who would be hurt by that would use the political system to prevent this practice that hurt their business. The South had the right of succession but they did not have the might to maintain their independence from the Union.

Now today the tables are turned and we have eliminated almost all the tariffs and everyone wants the cheap imports. The South is now a center for Manufacturing, will they now fight for tariffs instead of against them. Then the Union was weak enough that the Confederacy was willing to bet everything on being able to resist the Union. The Union is so strong today if a state did succeed if could be bleed dry by the Union without firing a shot.

Tim

[texaswoodworker]

Some people in this thread speak out of both sides of there mouth
They say the war is over but its not for them.

They think Texas is special, when it just one of 50 (They claim its a Texas Thing) and you need to live in Texas to understand. Just wow

Do you have something to add to this discussion, or are you just going to bitch and groan about a discussion you DON'T have to read, and sling insults towards my state?

Seriously, grow up. If you don't like the conversation and have nothing to add to it other than your "the war goes on" bullcrap, then LEAVE IT.

[No_1]

Locked