Posted on 04/23/2013 5:44:26 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
My children have long been urging me to give them in a short story my experience in the Battle of Gettysburg. I was then a girl of thirteen, living on the Seminary Ridge which today is known to every child who studies the history of the Civil War.
I shall never forget the June afternoon when I stood on the Seminary steps with my parents and other persons to see a Confederate host marching in the Chambersburg Pike. It seemed as if Pandemonium had broken loose. A more ragged and unkempt set of men would be hard to find. Many wore parts of Union soldiers’ suits which, I suppose, had been picked up on the field of battle, or had been discarded by our men. A squad from the main body was sent over to the Seminary to find out whether any Yankee soldiers were concealed there. After the investigators were informed that the building was a theological school edifice, a guard, was placed around it, and we felt perfectly safe. I do not think any property was destroyed at that time, excepting a few cars containing government supplies, which were burned and also the railroad bridge, a short distance from the town. Early the following morning our unwelcome guests took their departure for the purpose, they said, of capturing Baltimore and Washington. Shortly after the enemy left our place, we were made glad by seeing regiment after regiment of our own men come and encamp around us. We gave them a royal welcome.
(Excerpt) Read more at historic-restorations.com ...
Do you find yourself agreeing with Hitler a lot? Seems to be a Hitler love fest here.
I don’t agree with anything that lunatic(Hitler) wrote, unlike some around here.
That's Hitler. Glad you don't agree with him.
In good time. How about the Hitler quote on Lincoln first?
Don’t like Hitler, including his mourning for the defeat of the CSA.
But if H says the sun comes up in the East, I won’t deny the plain truth because a man I despise stated a fact.
A great deal of what the Nazis said about the degeneracy of modern life, the degrading effects of an over-emphasis on materialism in society, and the degradation of modern art and literature was quite on the money. I suspect few American conservatives would disagree.
Just as a lot of what commies had to say about the unfairness of the wage system of the time and the disproportionate influence of money on the political system was pretty hard to argue with.
Both these groups had some very cogent criticisms of the democratic/capitalist system.
The problem is that their cures were in all cases a great deal worse than the disease. As Churchill, someone I do admire, said: Democracy is the worst possible political system, except for all the others.
Similarly, the free market is by definition illogical and incoherent, logically indefensible. The fact is, however, that the free market WORKS, and is in the long run the most just system of running an economy ever devised.
I assume you’ll take my comments here out of context, but in context I stand behind every word.
Do you read anything but fiction?
The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office.
Do you disagree with this? Is this not just a statement of how 35 of the 48 states came into existence?
Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states.
Do you disagree?
Then comes his conclusion, based on the previous two points.
Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own.
Obviously you disagree with this conclusion, but if you wish to be logically defensible you must show why the conclusion does not follow from the admittedly accurate premises. You aren't allowed to recognize the truth of the premises but reject the conclusion just because you don't like it.
The “Union” didn’t create anything. Art IV sect 3 Congress admits states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Just can’t do without taking the Constitution out of context, can you?
The very next sentence in the same Section says:
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
There you go, the territories belong completely to the United States and Congress sets up territories, establishing the boundaries of future states and establishes rules and law codes for those territories, with delegation of powers to the people of the territory only as Congress sees fit. Then Congress decides whether (or not) to admit states with the Constitution they’ve produced under the rules set up by Congress.
How can you possibly say the United States, acting through its Congress, didn’t create these new states? What agency did? Is it an example of spontaneous generation? Were they created from nothing, or were they created from the territories established by Congress as specified in the Constitution?
Congress doesn’t have to create territories from states. It had the constitutional right and power to keep them all territories forever. But instead the Union chose to make new states on a basis of equality with the old ones.
At least you're consistent.
because it’s always the same and I mean the same couple who jump up with their anti southern theme
understand what you are saying but I in my mind using neo gives a negative when talking about those who wish to remember their ancestors or even love that art of history and then mention certain aspects of the war.
BTW, I respect how you put that post of yours and I too think both sides like Grant and others should be respected and there are so many aspects to the war from the rich plantation owner to the anti slavery to the average man in the south of north who got roped into it and who fought for what.
Southerner who did not like Yankees coming in to his state to northerners who thought America should be one and way different to others.
The neo confederates also don’t complain about the rape of southern women by southern deserters, nor do they complain about the kidnapping of poor whites and free negroes in the northern states when Lee invaded.
After Lee’s army was defeated at Gettysburg, he took the captured free negroes and poor whites, had papers forged, and sold them as slaves in Virginia.
I am pro southern. I think it is a good thing that a minority of rich southerners are no longer allowed to kidnap torture and murder poor southerners.
You call them out to name calling and yet it's the same with the Southern side and their anti-Union theme. And then you resort to name calling of your own.
I can see that and have no desire to be accidentally offensive.
(Sometimes I am offensive on purpose, of course.) :)
So what would you prefer as a descriptive term for those who defend the Confederacy? I'm not necessarily classifying you in this group, but there certainly are some around here who do.
Oh I agree same goes for those minority rich Northerners who had those slave ships and sold them off to the rich southerners and then made a nice living off slave labor.
I think the clue was
“ the same couple “ in that post.
oh and as usual the usual trolling of these threads by the usual couple who got banned always come back and troll again because they can’t let it go and enjoy themselves getting in their digs.
After 1807 doing so was legally classified as a type of piracy and those captured were tried. Unfortunately, they were generally caught in southern waters, for obvious reasons and tried before southern juries. Which invariably acquitted them. As generally did northern juries, for that matter.
I've been unable to come up with a number for estimated slaves illegally run into America after 1807, but there were quite a few.
The joke part of the process ended after Lincoln, the man who didn't care about slavery, was elected.
Nathaniel Gordon, a native of Maine, was captured in August 1860, tried in November 1861 in NYC and duly hanged in February of 1862.
Never was a capital sentence carried out more justly.
He was a really nice guy. Most of his "cargo" was children, whom he considered unable to revolt against his cruelties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Gordon
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-trader.htm
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.