Agreed, Eisenhower's 1915 graduation ranked #61 of 164 would lead him, if nothing else, to respect Lee's graduating #2 in his 1829 class.
Young Robert E Lee & Dwight Eisenhower:
Posted on 05/01/2017 7:54:06 AM PDT by C19fan
John S. Mosby, known as the “Gray Ghost,” was a Virginian who became legendary for his leadership of Mosby’s Rangers—a band of Confederate guerrilla fighters that harassed the Union Army and went toe-to-toe with George Armstrong Custer in the Shenandoah Valley.
Mosby is still highly regarded as a strategist and tactician and is studied to this day by practitioners of unconventional warfare. He lived a long life, dying early in the 20th century, and was also a lawyer, a diplomat and author who wrote about his experiences during the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
No, most of John Brown's "Secret Six" financial backers fled the country to avoid prosecution.
One (Smith) checked himself into a nut-house to escape extradition on grounds of insanity.
Only Rev. Higginson (Unitarian minister, friend of Ralph Waldo Emmerson) remained openly in Boston, never arrested.
During the Civil War Higginson commanded The First South Carolina Volunteer regiment, which served with the famous 54th Massachusetts "Glory".
Of Brown's followers, ten were killed, seven more later captured & executed for treason.
Only five escaped entirely (some to Canada), most later serving the Union Army, some of whom died there.
It's at least arguable, had there been no Civil War, whether Brown's five escapees would have eventually been tracked down & arrested.
But after Deep South Fire Eaters split the Democrat Party at their April convention just four months after Brown's execution, political feelings hardened beyond previous experience.
Why don't you be a jolly good sport and simply explain that BroJoeK mistakenly misattributed the two quotes by transposing the posters names? Fair play and all, eh what? Or perhaps you'd just rather wave your nugget of fools gold around, as per usual.
Agreed, Eisenhower's 1915 graduation ranked #61 of 164 would lead him, if nothing else, to respect Lee's graduating #2 in his 1829 class.
Young Robert E Lee & Dwight Eisenhower:
A man of unusual intelligence & honesty.
Mosby & rangers:
Exactly the way I first learned it, and have read again ever since.
But I take it our FRiend DiogenesLamp has secret sources the rest of us don't know about... ?
Montgomery, 10th. To Gen. G. T. Beauregard, Charleston. If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intentions of teh Washinton Government to supply Fort Sumter by force, you will at once demand its evacation, and if this is refused, proceed in such a manner as you may determine to reduce it. Answer.(Signed) L.P. Walker, Secretary of War
Learn English.
DiogenesLamp #708: "For you and your friends?
More like a religious hymn."
Yes, especially their more inspirational passages -- we might say Lincoln's Gettysburg Address equates to Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
But classical-romantic pieces generally (i.e., 9th Symphony) are quite logical as are most Lincoln speeches.
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, "Ode to Joy"
After the NPR commercial, starts around 5:45.
Makes me wish I'd learned more German in school.
This American-English adaptation needs no translation!
Thanks God Lincoln wrote in American-English. ;-)
It actually fits rather closely to what people want to believe regarding the Civil War conflict.
"Brotherhood of man", and all that jazz.
The manufacturer in Britain probably did end up paying the cost of the shipping, but not everything he paid ended up in the cotton planter's pocket, even apart from the money for shippers and insurance companies. There was a lot to do with cotton along the way -- sampling, grading, separating, bailing, re-bailing, etc. -- and all that, plus the fluctuations of market and climate could cut into the money the planter got.
As for buying manufactured products in Britain, the cost of shipping would ultimately have been paid by the consumer, but how would purchasing have worked in the days before Amazon or FedEx or the Sears catalog? It wasn't so easy to get what you wanted. In the early days of photography you weren't likely to see actual pictures of what you were buying, so having somebody there on the ground to check out the merchandise would have been useful.
In Colonial Virginia, tobacco planters dealt directly with British agents. The Yankees may have shipped the tobacco, but weren't involved in the commercial transactions. Virginia planters had as many complaints about their British agents as Diogenes does about the Yankees.
DiogenesLamp: "...the North did not give a crap about preserving the Union until they realized how much money it would cost them if the South left.
Read the Newspaper excerpts I posted above."
In fact, you could find Northern papers expressing every opinion imaginable -- from "let them go" to "defeat the rebellion".
In general Northern opinions rose & fell depending on the latest secessionist outrage against Federal property & officials and the response of Union leaders.
When President Buchanan was conciliatory and Congress seemed compromising then Northern publics reconciled themselves to secession, and the reverse when leaders stood strong.
But it was not green-shaded economic calculations which drove them, rather their sense of constitutional right & wrong versus reported secessionists' behaviors.
DiogenesLamp: "This also ignores the point that the right to independence is the foundation on which our own government rested, and at the time, no one had ever heard of the 'right' to stop independence.
In other words, the South had an acknowledged right to do what they did, and the North did not. "
In claims like this DiogenesLamp comes close, very close, to the truth but still he utterly refuses to acknowledge it.
The truth is that Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secession, peacefully, formed their Confederacy, peacefully, ratified their constitution and elected a President, peacefully, even called up a 100,000 man army, peacefully, with no military response from the United States.
Northern politicians gave their speeches, expressed their constitutional opinions, attempted "compromise" legislation in Congress, but did exactly nothing and nothing was the result of their talk.
When President Buchanan sent a civilian ship to resupply Fort Sumter it was fired on, withdrew and that was that.
Only when President Lincoln's second resupply mission resulted in Confederate military assault on and Union surrender of Fort Sumter -- then & only then did Northerners decide "enough is enough" time to defeat the rebellion.
And DiogenesLamp knows all this, but like a bone-headed propagandist refuses to acknowledge it.
DiogenesLamp: "Well that's because anyone in the North telling a story that didn't fit Lincoln's narrative ended up in jail.
The Northern newspapers either printed support for the propaganda from Washington or they were shut down."
All because of that little-known and almost never-read document called the US Constitution, which defines treason as:
DiogenesLamp: "It is simply not taught in history that Lincoln sent a war fleet down there with orders to attack.
Nobody teaches that part of the story."
It's not taught because it's not true, except in DiogenesLamp's wildest fantasies.
DiogenesLamp: "Because this one fortress that overlooked their primary port of Trade on the Atlantic was far more important than all the other forts they had already abandoned?
Why was it more important?"
No, in 1860 there were only two Southern forts east of Texas manned by regular US Army troops -- Fort Barrancas near Pensacola, Florida and Fort Moultrie in Charleston.
When secession began Union garrison troops in Fort Barancas relocated to nearby Fort Pickens and those in Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
President Buchanan attempted to resupply both garrisons but failed at Fort Sumter.
But even Doughfaced Northern "peacenik" Buchanan refused to just abandon those forts.
Incoming President Lincoln simply attempted to repeat what Buchanan had already done.
DiogenesLamp: "Virtually all the trade went to New York because there was no advantage to going elsewhere.
Make a 30-50% advantage to going elsewhere and the Ships would spend the extra week or two that it took to go to Charleston instead, and virtually the entire trade traffic shifts to the South."
And this is a place where whatever thin strand of logic DL commands is utterly lost to fantasy, since nothing Confederacy might do would ever give Charleston a 30% - 50% advantage over New York, or over other Northern & Southern ports like Baltimore & New Orleans.
DiogenesLamp: "Slavery wasn't the real bone of contention.
The loss of money to the Federal Treasury and the threat of losing a significant amount of economic activity was."
But protecting slavery certainly was the root-cause of Southern dissatisfaction (remember John Brown?), their declarations of secession and Confederacy.
So their actions to defend Confederate "integrity" ultimately root in slavery -- including slavery's economics, morality and legality.
**This response totals 547 words! ;-)
That was a very good, and succinct, summation of what happened. As Clausewitz said, “War is politics by other means.” I tip my hat to you sir.
Thanks for an excellent response!
A very thorough refutation of his arguments. I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears, or are they granite?
The one good thing I can say about the southern rebellion is that it hastened the end of slavery. They went to war to protect slavery, and lost it. I think that if the south had not rebelled they could have blocked any Republican efforts to curtail or end slavery. This may have resulted in slavery lasting until the late 1800s to early 1900s. Thomas Jefferson’s hideous blot would have become a hideous stain.
It is sad that America won the war but then allowed the rebels to win the peace. Resulting in 100 years of blacks living not much better than they did as slaves.
Fixed just a bit...
To your point: from at least the time of President John Quincy Adams, Northerners understood that Civil War would create conditions where "contraband" could justify emancipation and eventual abolition.
But such constitutional amendments (i.e., 13th, 14th & 15th) could never be ratified so long as the Slave Power remained in charge.
And of course jeffersondem knows that, but wishes to ignore or mock it.
jeffersondem: "In the Gettysburg address, Lincoln even cited the Declaration of Independence as a reason to crush rebellion even though the DOI made the strongest case ever for rebellion."
Well.... no.
Lincoln's reference was to our nation, "...conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Nothing there about a "right of secession" or "case for rebellion".
And you well know that no Founder, Jefferson or anybody else, ever advocated secession "at pleasure", which is what Fire Eaters did in 1860-1 and no Founder ever proposed starting war against the Brits as Confederates did at Fort Sumter.
But you do so much enjoy mocking our Founders, I think you must still be just a weeeeee bit bitter over that 1776 "unpleasantness", right?
I generally don't read BroJoeK's "arguments", could you provide a synopsis in a thousand words or less so that I can see for myself if they are a refutation or not?
The one good thing I can say about the southern rebellion is that it hastened the end of slavery.
Don't be ridiculous. If you have an honest bone in your body you will admit that the war was the only thing that caused the end of slavery in the 19th century. Without that war, it would have been impossible to create the 13th amendment banning it.
They went to war to protect slavery, and lost it.
From what were they protecting it? It was legal in the United States, remember? Lincoln offered to make it even more protected by supporting the Corwin amendment, so how can you in good conscious keep repeating that mantra?
It truthfully would have been more protected had they remained in the Union.
This may have resulted in slavery lasting until the late 1800s to early 1900s.
"May"? Are you out of your mind? The 13th amendment barely passed, and that is with guns pointed at the legislatures of all the Southern States that voted the way Washington D.C. ordered them to vote. That was with every bribe and threat Lincoln could bring to bear to force the other states to vote in favor of it.
How the h3ll do you see the 13th amendment passing without all of that?
It is sad that America won the war but then allowed the rebels to win the peace. Resulting in 100 years of blacks living not much better than they did as slaves.
I have been trying to tell you that they didn't really care about blacks, they just didn't want the South taking the European trade away from them and becoming economic competition for their industries.
Lincoln was going to sell them out for the first 18 months of the war. They weren't fighting for the benefit of the slaves, they were fighting to decide who would rule the South.
But everything you say here depends on definitions of those words like "invading", "conquering" and "winning".
For examples:
In early 1861 Confederates "invaded" & seized dozens of Union forts, ships, arsenals & mints, threatened Union officials & fired on Union ships.
You may call that "defensive" but I call it "aggressive" because it was.
In early 1861 Confederates in Union states like Maryland, Missouri & western Virginia assaulted, attacked & killed Union troops.
Sure, you may call that "defensive" but I call it "aggressive" because it was.
In early 1861 while the Union army totaled just 16,000 most scattered in western forts, the Confederacy called up its first 100,000 troops followed soon by another 400,000.
Yes, that may seem "defensive" to you but I call it "aggressive" because it was.
In early 1861 Confederates began Civil War at Fort Sumter and formally declared war on May 6, 1861.
Certainly, you may view that as "defensive" but I call it "aggressive" because it was.
In 1861, once war was started & declared Confederates soon began invading Union states & territories like Missouri, Kentucky, western Virginia, Oklahoma & New Mexico.
So I "get" that you think it "defensive" but I call it "aggressive" because it was.
By the end of 1861 Confederates had declared Union states of Missouri & Kentucky part of the Confederacy even though neither had legitimately voted to secede, and they declared Oklahoma and New Mexico Confederate territories even though neither legitimately could be.
Yes could be, you see even that as "defensive" but I call it "aggressive" because it was.
Throughout the war, even into late 1864 Confederates planned & launched many invasions, raids & operations into 14 Union states & territories (of 30 remaining), which you may well see as "defensive" but I call "aggressive" because they were.
Word definitions.
"Peace" on Confederate terms would be a pure victory leaving the Union highly vulnerable to future Southern aggressions.
So I don't consider that "defensive".
Even as you salute the myth that the South alone was responsible for slavery, your testimony repudiates the myth.
And just as in nature, there was no war after "cell division", no war after secession, none after forming Confederacy, ratifying their new constitution & electing Confederate government.
There was even no war after the Confederacy called up its first 100,000 man Army.
War only began, at Fort Sumter, when Confederates demanded its surrender and assaulted Union garrison after their commander refused.
And once war began then Confederates refused to end it on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
I must be crazy because you and I actually agree on something. That without the southern rebellion slavery would have lasted for much longer. And yes I am probably being generous with it ending in the late 1800s or early 1900s, it might have lasted until now.
You have been told this Ad Nauseam, that the Republicans of 1860 wished to limit slavery to the states where it already existed and that this was intolerable as far as the south was concerned. Perhaps in your extensive two years of research on the civil war you failed to read the republican party platform of 1860. Here it is, I would suggest you read it all, especially sections 7 and 9.
Republican Party Platform of 1860
May 17, 1860
Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:
1. That the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved.
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may. And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relations between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the Federal Courts of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should, of right, be immediately admitted as a state under the Constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the House.
14. That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
15. That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
16. That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.
17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the co-operation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.
I don't see a "choice" in that order and obviously neither did Beauregard.
I also know of no reluctance on Beauregard's part to obey Davis' order.
And all newspaper reports say Charlestonians were deliriously happy about it!
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.