In Defense of Lee And Jackson

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by David13 »

5tev3 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 11:24 am What about the Knights of the Golden Circle and their objectives?

What about them? What can you give us?
I am all ears. Or eyes, I guess.
dc

User avatar
Red
captain of 100
Posts: 613

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by Red »

gclayjr wrote: August 27th, 2017, 7:57 pm Red,
I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.
Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.


Regards,,
George Clay
University of Texas. 4.0

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by David13 »

Red wrote: August 28th, 2017, 4:56 pm
gclayjr wrote: August 27th, 2017, 7:57 pm Red,
I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.
Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.


Regards,,
George Clay
University of Texas. 4.0
Or course, with a name like Red (Texas Red) you mighta majeered in ridin', ropin', and tabacy spittin'.
And now a musical break with great song about ... TEXAS RED!
dc
Probably one of the finest songs ever written, and sung.

User avatar
Red
captain of 100
Posts: 613

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by Red »

By the 1860s, the industrial revolution was all but crippling the south's economy. It also made slavery mostly obsolete. You can't deny the industrial revolution. The Northern economy was prolific because of it. It doesn't make logical sense to say the War of Northern Aggression was fought over slavery when slavery was nearly dead itself. The South could barely get their product to market because it was so behind on the industrial revolution. Few railroads. The new machinery of the times outworked even the best slaves, hand over fist. Sadly, they were just behind on the times. Lincoln used that to completely cripple the South. It was a war of economics.

People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.

The war shouldn't be compared to Nazi Germany unless you want to admit they both have revisionist histories emerging hard and rapidly. There are some places that teach that the Holocaust never happened. Countries that erase their history are doomed to repeat it.

User avatar
Red
captain of 100
Posts: 613

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by Red »

David13 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 5:05 pm
Red wrote: August 28th, 2017, 4:56 pm
gclayjr wrote: August 27th, 2017, 7:57 pm Red,
I'm educated, not a nut case. My minor was in civil war history. That article highlights larger points of what I was taught in college.
Either you were not a very good student, or you did not go to a very good college, if you managed to minor in Civil War history and not be familiar with what was actually written in the Constitution of the Confederacy.


Regards,,
George Clay
University of Texas. 4.0
Or course, with a name like Red (Texas Red) you mighta majeered in ridin', ropin', and tabacy spittin'.
And now a musical break with great song about ... TEXAS RED!
dc
Probably one of the finest songs ever written, and sung.
lol that's awesome! I've never heard that one before.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by gclayjr »

Red,
People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.
You seem to assert credentials and the SOS, without documentation. I am the only one to reference a Civil war era document (The actual Constitution of the Confederacy), instead of just assertions and opinion.

You also may have problems reading. I have agreed before that most southern SOLDIERS, and I will add most Southern CITIZENS did not own slaves, but the Oligarchy who controlled the government, and who were responsible for the Secession DID own slaves. As I have stated over and over, I do not consider people like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson and other southerns who served their state or "country" as evil, but the country that was created by those oligarchs was nothing but despicable, and despite you posturing and blabbing, you have shown nothing to disprove this.

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
Red
captain of 100
Posts: 613

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by Red »

gclayjr wrote: August 28th, 2017, 6:07 pm Red,
People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.
You seem to assert credentials and the SOS, without documentation. I am the only one to reference a Civil war era document (The actual Constitution of the Confederacy), instead of just assertions and opinion.

You also may have problems reading. I have agreed before that most southern SOLDIERS, and I will add most Southern CITIZENS did not own slaves, but the Oligarchy who controlled the government, and who were responsible for the Secession DID own slaves. As I have stated over and over, I do not consider people like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson and other southerns who served their state or "country" as evil, but the country that was created by those oligarchs was nothing but despicable, and despite you posturing and blabbing, you have shown nothing to disprove this.

Regards,

George Clay
I apologize, I didn't read everything you wrote. I was only making commentary on misconceptions on what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over. Perhaps there are other people on the forum that did not know that little tidbit, so feel free to ignore it, it certainly wasn't directed at you.

There's another post on the forum you might benefit from. It's called Alaris' Comment - Brotherly Love. Perhaps you could benefit from it.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by David13 »

Red wrote: August 28th, 2017, 6:21 pm
gclayjr wrote: August 28th, 2017, 6:07 pm Red,
People love to say it was a war over slavery. The truth is, only 2% of the southern population owned the number of slaves required to run a plantation. Most southerners had fewer than 5 or had none at all. When the war was over, most slaves not on a plantation stayed with their white families because they loved their white families and their white families loved them. They were truly family.
You seem to assert credentials and the SOS, without documentation. I am the only one to reference a Civil war era document (The actual Constitution of the Confederacy), instead of just assertions and opinion.

You also may have problems reading. I have agreed before that most southern SOLDIERS, and I will add most Southern CITIZENS did not own slaves, but the Oligarchy who controlled the government, and who were responsible for the Secession DID own slaves. As I have stated over and over, I do not consider people like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson and other southerns who served their state or "country" as evil, but the country that was created by those oligarchs was nothing but despicable, and despite you posturing and blabbing, you have shown nothing to disprove this.

Regards,

George Clay
I apologize, I didn't read everything you wrote. I was only making commentary on misconceptions on what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over. Perhaps there are other people on the forum that did not know that little tidbit, so feel free to ignore it, it certainly wasn't directed at you.

There's another post on the forum you might benefit from. It's called Alaris' Comment - Brotherly Love. Perhaps you could benefit from it.


I think he's nice enough, or polite enough. He just doesn't have a very extensive understanding of that Confederate Constitution.
Well, we will take a more in depth look at that Constitution in a short while.
dc

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by oneClimbs »

David13 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 1:51 pm
5tev3 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 11:24 am What about the Knights of the Golden Circle and their objectives?
What about them? What can you give us?
I am all ears. Or eyes, I guess.
dc
I won't pretend to be a civil war expert and I'm not denouncing Chuck Baldwin, I voted for the man and respect him quite a bit. I don't particularly think Lincoln is the saint he's made out to be either.

My great x3 grandfather Axel Hayford Reed was a medal of honor recipient on the Union side, 2nd Minnesota. I have his journal and he wrote about his experiences. He saw his motivation for fighting as putting down a rebellion, preserving the union and abolishing human slavery. Whatever the historians pass down, that's just the perspective of a soldier at the time who was there.

The KGC were a secret society of southerners that initiated a rebellion against the north for the purpose of separating themselves to establish a "golden circle" of territories including the southern states, Mexico, and carribean isles all around the gulf. The KKK was a military arm of this organization. Not everyone in the south was a part of this scheme.

Personally, I see this group as a dark organization that stirred up a rebellion while the north reacted in ways that were also perhaps illegal and immoral. I think there were bad guys on both sides and many good people on both sides caught in between and fighting for perhaps very different reasons. The south against northern aggression and the north against southern rebellion.

Again, I'm no historian, but I don't think either side was entirely innocent.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by David13 »

5tev3 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 9:11 pm
David13 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 1:51 pm
5tev3 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 11:24 am What about the Knights of the Golden Circle and their objectives?
What about them? What can you give us?
I am all ears. Or eyes, I guess.
dc
I won't pretend to be a civil war expert and I'm not denouncing Chuck Baldwin, I voted for the man and respect him quite a bit. I don't particularly think Lincoln is the saint he's made out to be either.

My great x3 grandfather Axel Hayford Reed was a medal of honor recipient on the Union side, 2nd Minnesota. I have his journal and he wrote about his experiences. He saw his motivation for fighting as putting down a rebellion, preserving the union and abolishing human slavery. Whatever the historians pass down, that's just the perspective of a soldier at the time who was there.

The KGC were a secret society of southerners that initiated a rebellion against the north for the purpose of separating themselves to establish a "golden circle" of territories including the southern states, Mexico, and carribean isles all around the gulf. The KKK was a military arm of this organization. Not everyone in the south was a part of this scheme.

Personally, I see this group as a dark organization that stirred up a rebellion while the north reacted in ways that were also perhaps illegal and immoral. I think there were bad guys on both sides and many good people on both sides caught in between and fighting for perhaps very different reasons. The south against northern aggression and the north against southern rebellion.

Again, I'm no historian, but I don't think either side was entirely innocent.

Neither side was perfect, nor "innocent" etc. That's not the point.
The point is that "political correctness", the left, and the revisionist historians I'many years ago decided to rewrite history and say the Civil War was about slavery. First and foremost.
That was not the history.
However, buffs, or superficial looks at it could so conclude. It's easy and fast to come to that conclusion. Even after a superficial look at the Confederate Constitution.
I'll post a far more in depth look at that Constitution in a bit.
dc

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by oneClimbs »

David13 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 9:17 pm The point is that "political correctness", the left, and the revisionist historians I'many years ago decided to rewrite history and say the Civil War was about slavery. First and foremost.
That was not the history.
I don't think anyone here would argue against that. No doubt that the victors would latch onto anything that gave them the moral high ground and veil any wrongdoing.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by gclayjr »

David3, 5tev3
Neither side was perfect, nor "innocent" etc. That's not the point.
The point is that "political correctness", the left, and the revisionist historians I'many years ago decided to rewrite history and say the Civil War was about slavery. First and foremost.
That was not the history.
I am the only one here using ORIGINAL documentation of history. It is the southern apologists who are revisionists, trying to revise history to make the southern secession about some noble "limiting" of federal power. When in fact the only Federal power they gave a @#$# about was the power over Slavery, and as I noted previously, the Confederate Constitution enshrined Slavery and denied any state or local government the power to mitigate it in any state or county in any way.

This "everybody is guilty" and everybody is a revisionist" bull crap, is just syrup to cover for the lying of the southern apologists!

Let's go to some more "Original Documents"

like ... say the declaration of Secession by the state of Mississippi" Starting from the very beginning
Whereas, the constitutional Union was formed by the several states in their separate sovereign capacity for the purpose of mutual advantage and protection;

That the several states are distinct sovereignties, whose supremacy is limited so far only as the same has been delegated by voluntary compact to a federal government, and, when it fails to accomplish the ends for which it was established, the parties to the compact have the right to resume, each state for itself, such delegated powers;

That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter, and all efforts to impair its value or lessen its duration by Congress, or any of the free states, is a violation of the compact of Union and is destructive of the ends for which it was ordained, but in defiance of the principles of the Union thus established, the people of the Northern states have assumed a revolutionary position toward the Southern states;

That they have set at defiance that provision of the Constitution which was intended to secure domestic tranquillity among the states and promote their general welfare, namely: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due";

That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies, and state legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slaveholding states,

That they have enticed our slaves from us and, by state intervention, obstructed and prevented their rendition under the Fugitive Slave Law;

That they continue their system of agitation obviously for the purpose of encouraging other slaves to escape from service, to weaken the institution in the slaveholding states by rendering the holding of such property insecure, and as a consequence its ultimate abolition certain;

That they claim the right and demand its execution by Congress, to exclude slavery from the territories, but claim the right of protection for every species of property owned by themselves;
And it goes on and on, not about Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but about Northern government interference in the beloved practice of SLAVERY!


How about the South Caroline Declaration of Secession
n the present case, the fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the states have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which obligations, and the laws of the general government, have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these states the fugitive is discharged from the service of labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.
There are none so blind as they who will not see!

I Challenge you southern revisionists. Show that the Civil war was NOT about slavery using ORIGINAL sources, rather than speculation of apologists!

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
bbsion
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Contact:

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by bbsion »

ajax wrote: August 26th, 2017, 9:52 pm Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson that is, says Chuck Baldwin:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Ariticles/t ... ckson.aspx
That was a pretty good article. I just bought that book The Real Lincoln on Amazon. Hopefully it's just as good. I've read most of Robert E. Lee on Leadership and that was a good book.

I know this is not always the case but for the most part, knowing that this world is getting closer and closer to Jesus coming again, you can usually bank on everything getting backwards (calling light darkness). So when the masses and the school systems teach that Lincoln is a hero and that the war was over slavery... there is likely more to the story. Satan lies a lot and twists everything to pollute it.

I'll read the book The Real Lincoln with an open mind but I think it might just confirm some of the thoughts and feelings I already have on the topic.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by ajax »

I already answered you George. But as always you willfully ignore or just don't understand the idea of delegated powers as stated in the original document itself. I know you're an old dog, and perhaps this new trick is just too much for you. I gave you plenty of links to chew on, and since you obviously have time to peruse, you really have no excuse.

The real question is: Why did the North invade? Slavery? If Lincoln chooses not to invade, there is no war.

Compare Lincolns response to Jefferson's response of Northern secessionists in his day: First Inaugural: “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”

Jefferson understood that sovereign states that voluntarily didn't give up essential sovereignty, only specific delegated powers.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

If the North hated the South so much, why force them to stay? Why not just let them go in peace? And let the evils of slavery slowly die out, with local solutions. You really think there would be slavery in the South today if Lincoln had let them go?

And if the CSA Constitution was a truly evil government, what does that say about the US Constitution of 1787, in which slavery was still practiced in all states?

You reveal yourself as a true Yankee, ready to stamp out evil at every turn through force and violence, rather than persuasion and long suffering. It's a mindset of self-righteous posturing and meddling in the affairs of others. You reveal it not only here, but in your incessant name calling of anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy as leftist pinkos.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by David13 »

5tev3 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 10:15 pm
David13 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 9:17 pm The point is that "political correctness", the left, and the revisionist historians I'many years ago decided to rewrite history and say the Civil War was about slavery. First and foremost.
That was not the history.
I don't think anyone here would argue against that. No doubt that the victors would latch onto anything that gave them the moral high ground and veil any wrongdoing.
There is a lot more to it than that.
Revisionist history began many years ago. It has to do with a communist/socialist agenda.
I was talking with a lady who used to teach at one of the universities here. She quit when she realized that their required teaching was part of that agenda to turn all students into secular humanist atheists.
That includes rewriting history for purposes of carrying out the agenda.
I don't know if you are aware of it. Schools long ago ceased teaching children, or teaching them how to think, but turned into propaganda machines, where the children are indoctrinated into a certain point of view. It's effect is seen in the vast numbers of young people who were willing to vote for the Hella Beast at the last election.
Talk to some of these young people. You will find they all think alike. And they all have been indoctrinated to think that, basically right is wrong, and wrong is right.
They are totally unaware that they have been brainwashed. It's the result of the so called educational system. And rewriting American History is all part of that agenda.
dc

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by gclayjr »

Ajax,
The real question is: Why did the North invade? Slavery? If Lincoln chooses not to invade, there is no war.
I may not have answered because this is even stupider than the usual level of stupidity I so often find here!

The South first attacked by firing on Fort Sumter!

I know you have a lot of stupid things to say about how the there would be no war if the US ignored the attack on Fort Sumter.

And I'm sure that we would not have entered WW2 if the Japs didn't attack Pearl harbor, So I guess it was our militant fault that we attacked Japan, because it wasn't their fault! ...If we had only given them the scrap metal they wanted, they wouldn't have attacked us.

This is among the stupidest of the Stupid Southern revisionist arguments. Yes, if we let everybody do what they want, until they kill us all , then we will never provoke evil men to do what they say they do because of our provocations

Hey, If the Jews didn't run the world and make a poor treaty a Versailles, then Hitler would not have been forced to Kill them all. It was the Jews' fault to make him do it, just like it was Lincoln's fault to make the South attack Fort Sumter and start the Civil war because they wanted to be left alone to perpetuate and promulgate SLAVERY!

Regards,

George Clay

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by Ezra »

gclayjr wrote: August 29th, 2017, 9:02 am Ajax,
The real question is: Why did the North invade? Slavery? If Lincoln chooses not to invade, there is no war.
I may not have answered because this is even stupider than the usual level of stupidity I so often find here!

The South first attacked by firing on Fort Sumter!

I know you have a lot of stupid things to say about how the there would be no war if the US ignored the attack on Fort Sumter.

And I'm sure that we would not have entered WW2 if the Japs didn't attack Pearl harbor, So I guess it was our militant fault that we attacked Japan, because it wasn't their fault! ...If we had only given them the scrap metal they wanted, they wouldn't have attacked us.

This is among the stupidest of the Stupid Southern revisionist arguments. Yes, if we let everybody do what they want, until they kill us all , then we will never provoke evil men to do what they say they do because of our provocations

Hey, If the Jews didn't run the world and make a poor treaty a Versailles, then Hitler would not have been forced to Kill them all. It was the Jews' fault to make him do it, just like it was Lincoln's fault to make the South attack Fort Sumter and start the Civil war because they wanted to be left alone to perpetuate and promulgate SLAVERY!

Regards,

George Clay
So you support 911 backlash due to the prior shady involvement of the usa in foreign affairs?

The argument goes both way. North and south are not innocent. Both at fault both evil. The lord had removed his people to Utah.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1793
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by kittycat51 »

Silver wrote: August 28th, 2017, 10:16 am
kittycat51 wrote: August 28th, 2017, 9:48 am Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who ha administered the oath, later commented that Lincoln seemed to intentionally kiss two particular verses from Isaiah 5...verses 25 and 26:
Here's everything you need to know about Chase...hmmm...sounds like the name of a bank...

http://www.history.com/topics/salmon-p-chase
Salmon P. Chase (1808-1873) was a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio and Supreme Court chief justice who served as the U.S. secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War (1861-65). A staunch abolitionist, Chase spent his early career as a lawyer and became known as “the attorney general for fugitive slaves” for his frequent defenses of runaway blacks. After representing Ohio in the U.S. Senate from 1849 to 1855, Chase went on to serve as the state’s governor from 1855 to 1859. He made a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860 before serving as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of the Treasury. Chase was responsible for managing the finances of the Union during the Civil War and was instrumental in establishing the national banking system and issuing paper currency. Chase resigned his position in June 1864 and was appointed chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court later that year. He would serve until his death in 1873 at the age of 65. (close quote)

Let's open our eyes and see how Presidents have been puppets for a long, long time.
What's your point? So what that the Chief Judge was a globalist. That had nothing to do with the scripture Lincoln chose and why and Chase's own observation of the "kiss".

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by ajax »

Sumter was in South Carolina, who had already seceded. All of Lincolns cabinet advised against provisioning the fort and provoking attack except his Postmaster general Montgomery Blair.

Why was Sumter so important to Lincoln to hold on to?

What was the death toll of the barrage on Sumter to justify calling up 75,000 troops to invade the South?

Here is what members of his cabinet, besides Blaire, noted to Lincoln:

Secretary of State Seward:
Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in
Fort Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to
do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting
to demolish the defenses of the Carolinians? . . . I may be
asked whether I would in no case, and at no time advise force—
whether I propose to give up everything? I reply no. I would not
initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil
of the seceding States.
Secretary of Treasury Chase:
If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate
necessity for the enlistment of armies and the expedition of millions,
I cannot advise it in the existing circumstances of the
country and in the present condition of the national finances.
Secretary of War Cameron:
Whatever might have been done as late as a month ago, it is
too sadly evident that it cannot now be done without the sacrifice
of life and treasure not at all commensurate with the
object to be attained; and as the abandonment of the fort in a
few weeks, sooner or later, appears to be an inevitable necessity,
it seems to me that the sooner it is done the better
.
Cameron also stated that:
The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained
and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration
if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many
distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not
believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody
and protracted conflict.
Secretary of the Navy Wells:
By sending, or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not
war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any
course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to
advise a course that would provoke hostilities. It does not appear to
me that the dignity, strength, or character of the government
will be promoted by an attempt to provision Sumter in the
manner proposed, even should it succeed, while a failure would
be attended with untold disaster.
Attorney General Bates:
The possession of the fort, as we now hold it, does not enable us
to collect the revenue or enforce the laws of commercial navigation.
It may indeed involve a point of honor or a point of pride,
but I do not see any great national interest involved in the bare
fact of holding the fort as we now hold it.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by JohnnyL »

bbsion wrote: August 29th, 2017, 8:05 am
ajax wrote: August 26th, 2017, 9:52 pm Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson that is, says Chuck Baldwin:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Ariticles/t ... ckson.aspx
That was a pretty good article. I just bought that book The Real Lincoln on Amazon. Hopefully it's just as good. I've read most of Robert E. Lee on Leadership and that was a good book.
I'll read the book The Real Lincoln with an open mind but I think it might just confirm some of the thoughts and feelings I already have on the topic.
It is stunning to the mind that grew up on Lincoln love and "the Union was of God"...

I'd say a lot more, but I'll let George Clay, Jr., write a book report on it. Seeing as how it has an incredible amount of first-person evidence/ ORIGINAL documentation. ;)
Last edited by JohnnyL on August 29th, 2017, 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by Ezra »

ajax wrote: August 29th, 2017, 9:24 am Sumter was in South Carolina, who had already seceded. All of Lincolns cabinet advised against provisioning the fort and provoking attack except his Postmaster general Montgomery Blair.

Why was Sumter so important to Lincoln to hold on to?

What was the death toll of the barrage on Sumter to justify calling up 75,000 troops to invade the South?

Here is what members of his cabinet, besides Blaire, noted to Lincoln:

Secretary of State Seward:
Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in
Fort Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to
do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting
to demolish the defenses of the Carolinians? . . . I may be
asked whether I would in no case, and at no time advise force—
whether I propose to give up everything? I reply no. I would not
initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil
of the seceding States.
Secretary of Treasury Chase:
If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate
necessity for the enlistment of armies and the expedition of millions,
I cannot advise it in the existing circumstances of the
country and in the present condition of the national finances.
Secretary of War Cameron:
Whatever might have been done as late as a month ago, it is
too sadly evident that it cannot now be done without the sacrifice
of life and treasure not at all commensurate with the
object to be attained; and as the abandonment of the fort in a
few weeks, sooner or later, appears to be an inevitable necessity,
it seems to me that the sooner it is done the better
.
Cameron also stated that:
The proposition presented by Mr. Fox, so sincerely entertained
and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration
if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many
distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not
believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody
and protracted conflict.
Secretary of the Navy Wells:
By sending, or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not
war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any
course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to
advise a course that would provoke hostilities. It does not appear to
me that the dignity, strength, or character of the government
will be promoted by an attempt to provision Sumter in the
manner proposed, even should it succeed, while a failure would
be attended with untold disaster.
Attorney General Bates:
The possession of the fort, as we now hold it, does not enable us
to collect the revenue or enforce the laws of commercial navigation.
It may indeed involve a point of honor or a point of pride,
but I do not see any great national interest involved in the bare
fact of holding the fort as we now hold it.

What George is doing as he is reading your post


https://i.giphy.com/media/2dcW1Dlu2sZnW/200w.gif

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by JohnnyL »

Let's think a moment about "Revisionist" history.

What we have been brainwashed to think it means: People rewrite true history to make it false, to push evil agendas.

What it actually means: People rewrite history back to the original true history to stop the evil agendas of winners/ benefactors who rewrote it in the first place, and soon after it, happened, that basically followed the propaganda of the day.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by ajax »

Let me answer my own questions, before George answers to both questions SLAVERY:

Why was Sumter so important to Lincoln to hold on to? “My policy sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue.” -Lincoln's first message to Congress.

What was the death toll of the barrage on Sumter to justify calling up 75,000 troops to invade the South? There were no casualties during the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter at the start of the American Civil War. The only Union deaths came during the evacuation: One soldier was killed and another mortally wounded in an accidental explosion during a planned 100-gun salute.

The result of the Lincoln presidency was to transform a voluntary Union of states into a compulsory Union.

It quite literally was a fight between the Hamiltonian/Lincolnian vision vs the Jeffersonian vision.

Fascinating that also with the proposed Corwin amendment and Lincoln's own word in his first inaugural, ("I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, 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,")
that the frothing at the mouth slave loving Southerners would still secede.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by gclayjr »

Ezra,
So you support 911 backlash due to the prior shady involvement of the usa in foreign affairs?
This makes no sense what so ever, How do you make any such conclusion like this from what I said? You are so immersed in your conspiracy garbage, that you cannot even write a coherent thought.

If you extend my rationale, you could conclude that having been attacked by Arab terrorists on 9-11, they started a war, that we have to respond to.In fact that is true. Unlike Ft. Sumter, where we were clearly attacked by the southern militia, and the Southern states had signed or were going to sign articles of secession, or in the case of Pearl harbor where we were attacked by the empire or Japan, exactly who the terrorists were that were responsible for 9-11 are a bit murkier. This makes it a bit harder to determine who is attacking us, and who must be defeated. That is another argument for another day, but the idea that whatever Nation or Terrorist organization attacked us truly provoked a response is correct.

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Post by gclayjr »

Ajax,
Let me answer my own questions, before George answers to both questions SLAVERY:

Why was Sumter so important to Lincoln to hold on to? “My policy sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue.” -Lincoln's first message to Congress.

What was the death toll of the barrage on Sumter to justify calling up 75,000 troops to invade the South? There were no casualties during the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter at the start of the American Civil War. The only Union deaths came during the evacuation: One soldier was killed and another mortally wounded in an accidental explosion during a planned 100-gun salute.

The result of the Lincoln presidency was to transform a voluntary Union of states into a compulsory Union.

It quite literally was a fight between the Hamiltonian/Lincolnian vision vs the Jeffersonian vision.

Fascinating that also with the proposed Corwin amendment and Lincoln's own word in his first inaugural, ("I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, 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,")
that the frothing at the mouth slave loving Southerners would still secede.
While I don't totally agree with you. This is at least getting close to reality and rationality. There were differences in opinion as to whether a state could just quit the union or not. This can be debated.

What is not up to rational debate is that the one and only reason that the confederate states wanted to quit was to promote Slavery, that Slavery was enshrined in their constitution, and that after deciding to secede, they started shooting!

Beyond this is, one can do speculation for which many have written volumes, and Maybe you can write more.

Regards,

George Clay

Post Reply