Posted on 04/16/2011 6:27:28 AM PDT by Davy Buck
This is a perplexing question, as it relates to the WBTS. In some ways, yes. In others, no. I, like many of you, recently (and for the 3rd or 4th time), watched Ken Burns' PBS documentary, The Civil War. Even though I have several criticisms of the Burns' film, I still find it a fascinating piece of work and very educational. I've always thoroughly enjoyed watching the film, despite its shortcomings. One of the more moving parts of this film comes near the end, as shown below. Pay close attention at about 30 seconds in and listen as historian David McCullough narrates the moving "reenactment" of Pickett's charge at the 50th anniversary reunion at Gettysburg. I believe one can detect the emotion in McCullough's voice as it sounds like he almost chokes up in recounting the emotional event. I don't think he's acting. I don't mind admitting that I too was moved with emotion in hearing McCullough recount the story . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Nah, I’m thinking of heading your way dude, me and a whole passel ‘o’ Yankees are heading for ya! Run for the hills Reb!
‘’Misogynistic’’? Madame you make me laugh. Always do spot inventory taking of people you don’t know, do you? Madame I laid my sainted mother to rest five years ago, I’ve a beautiful wife, two kid sisters, five sisters-in-law, seven nieces and a beautiful daughter-in-law(from Canada, eh!) and I love and cherish them all as they do me. Stick to what ever it is you may know best because pop psychology sure don’t fit your pistol.
Actually, if secession was constitutional (and State secession was nowhere prohibited by the U.S. Constitution), then it was the north that initiated hostilities by refusing to remove federal troops from military installations inside seceded States. As I noted earlier, the constitutionality of State secession is the critical issue.
...and if having won, the South would have stopped then and there?
Why not? The goal of the seceding States was to detach themselves from their former union - not rule over it.
I don’t.
Congratulations. And perhaps you believe that the American colonies, 'after opening a war against Great Britain and having won, would NOT have stopped then and there'...
;>)
Victory in war changes things. Our intent was to separate from England. We did. Flush with that success and mindful that there was an entire continent to the west, well the rest is history.You seem to stay in the belief the South would have been content with just separating from the North. And then what? The North licks it’s wounds and then renews the fight another day? If the South had won they’ve have ‘’crossed the Rubicon’’. They would have had to take stock of where they were and realize, like it or not, there would have been bigger things at stake then just establishing a small confederation of states.
Victory in war changes things. Our intent was to separate from England. We did. Flush with that success and mindful that there was an entire continent to the west, well the rest is history.
Westward expansion of the American States was not inconsistent with independence from Great Britain. Speaking of expansion, the self-styled Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union offered statehood to Canada ("Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the united States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union"), but that offer was not renewed under the terms of the Constitution - another one of many differences between the two compacts.
You seem to stay in the belief the South would have been content with just separating from the North. And then what?
The two countries go their separate ways - like the United States and Canada?
;>)
The North licks it’s wounds and then renews the fight another day?
That decision would have been up to "the North"...
If the South had won they’ve have ‘’crossed the Rubicon’’. They would have had to take stock of where they were and realize, like it or not, there would have been bigger things at stake then just establishing a small confederation of states.
Interesting to meet someone here can read the minds of dead people...
;>)
Interesting to meet someone here who can read the minds of dead people’’. Could say the same of you. It isn’t ‘’mindreading of dead people’’, it would simply be the situation the South found itself in. Victory isn’t always so clean-cut.
You, my friend, are long on opinion and short on fact. 'Stick to that, because history sure don’t fit your pistol'...
;>)
Really? I’m not so sure of your history. You seem to think the CSA would have had a neat little time of itself if it had prevailed. I don’t think so.
Just because you have many female relatives, that doesn’t mean that you treat them well. I didn’t say what I said because of them and how you treat them. I said it because of how you treated me.
That ain’t pop psychology, bub.
Bump dat! ;o)
My, you’re a delicate thing aren’t you? Well toot’s man or woman, you attempt to lecture me like a child and I’ll let you know it.
You just proved my point.
Conceited, aren’t you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.