Posted on 06/24/2012 5:54:41 PM PDT by Borges
Some interesting choices with a Number 2 that I never heard of.
(Excerpt) Read more at mandatory.com ...
There was also Mildred Gillars, known as Axis Sally (though there were other broadcasters who were also known by that nickname). With time, experts have come to be a bit forgiving of Iva "Tokyo Rose" D'Aquino who, they say, wasn't political wasn't the treacherous monster she was made out to be.
Most of that handful of Americans in the Waffen SS were of German parentage. I suspect all of them were at least part German and many were taken back to Germany as children. That doesn't mean they weren't traitors, but it may explain why they weren't prosecuted.
...
At the time of the Civil War, people did not consider a "State" to be merely a division of the U.S.A.
...
Pretty clearly, if you graduated from West Point, took an oath of office as an officer, fought for the United States in Mexico, and went on to head West Point, you were a citizen of the United States with obligations and commitments to the United States.
Whatever somebody or other in the middle of nowhere thought, you came out of a tradition of service to the United States. Pretending some kind of amnesia about all that doesn't let you off the hook.
I used to believe all that nonsense about Virginia being Lee's "country" but it really doesn't fly -- not for a career military officer. It would be refreshing to be honest about this and look facts in the face.
The country that he served at West Point? The United States. The country that he fought for against Mexico? The United States.
You are assuming that the Union = the United States, which, in 1861, was not the case.
He had a decision to make, whom shall you serve - the Union, or the Confederacy. He chose to serve Virginia, and by extension, the Confederacy.
If he were a traitor, why didn’t he serve the Union and serve poorly? Is Lee, who fought well and bravely for the Confederates more of a traitor than McLellan, who ran on a platform of reconciliation with the South, against Lincoln, and who’s policy of war directly lead to it’s extension?
You’re quite the Union fascist and apologist aren’t you?
You obviously hate Robert E. Lee, you look down your trollish nose at Southerners, and you’re continuing this hate-the-South jihad for the second day now.
Just what in Hell is your agenda here?
Assuming as Lee's cousin Samuel Philips Lee who fought with the US Navy did. Or as Lee's brother, John Fitzgerald Lee who served in the US Army Judge Advocate General Corps did. Or as Lee's sister Anne Lee Marshall and her son who served in the Union Army did.
It really was a war of brother against brother. There was no established belief that loyalty to a state overrode loyalty to the country -- especially not among career soldiers and sailors. I suspect in Lee's case, it wasn't so much state or family tradition that carried the day. If he fought for the United States, he'd probably be fighting against his own children, and he couldn't do that.
It was a tragic choice he made. But it wasn't the right one.
Is Lee, who fought well and bravely for the Confederates more of a traitor than McLellan, who ran on a platform of reconciliation with the South, against Lincoln, and who’s policy of war directly lead to it’s extension?
That would be an easy yes.
Politicians will always argue about whether to fight wars and how to fight them, but to take up arms against one's own country is something else altogether.
So why is the opinion of Lee’s cousin as to the ‘correct side’ of greater significance to the opinion of Lee himself?
As another poster commented, you have trouble distinguishing death rate from total deaths.
“Andersonville was designed to hold 10,000 prisoners. The rebels stuffed it with 32,000. It was avoidable.”
Of course it was avoidable. Lincoln could have accepted the offer of prisoner exchange. He refused.
“No state had the right to secede from the union.”
No colony had the right to secede from the British Empire.
Because you said, "You are assuming that the Union = the United States, which, in 1861, was not the case."
You were contending that an agreement existed about federal versus state citizenship -- that one was a citizen of a state, rather than a citizen of the country.
There was no such agreed upon understanding that one was a citizen of a state, rather than a citizen of the country.
It may have been convenient for people to convince themselves of that, but it wasn't the case, particularly for people who had taken an oath to the federal constitution and laws.
That’s all very interesting, and as usual you are a font of information that I enjoy reading. But you still haven’t answered the question that I posed to you.
Was George Washington a traitor when the took up arms and led an army against King George?
“You are assuming that the Union = the United States, which, in 1861, was not the case.”
You are correct. The CSA never legally existed.
The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869) that unilateral succession is illegal and that the southern states never legally succeeded.
“The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”
“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.”
“Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.”
I see you’re out making friends again ;-)
As you know very well winners define the terms. The US won.
As you know very well winners define the terms. The US won.
And George didn’t pussy-foot around trying to dance between the raindrops of unilateral secession vs. outright rebellion. He knew that if he lost his life was forfeit.
I hope it is God's will that someday after this age all truth will be known about matters such as these. I believe if that happens, we'll find that the scum was LBJ's buddies. Look up Jim Braden.
The Brits had learned centuries back that subtle nuances were just so much baloney
“No colony had the right to secede from the British Empire.”
You are wrong.
The Treaty of Paris of 3 September 1783 recognized the United States to be free, sovereign and independent.
All British troops were removed from American soil.
moonshot925 makes a lot of non-sequiturs. Maybe N-S moved to North Dakota.
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.