Skip to comments.Democrats fire on Ft. Sumter
Posted on 03/22/2010 10:10:57 AM PDT by Between the Lines
When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote." I fired back, "Hardly."
Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say? Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea. But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter. That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back-and-forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade.
What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.
In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business. That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies. But they didn't. Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.
So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war? Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
Sherman’s March to the Sea...wholesale and unmitigated genocide...far and away the worst of the worst of the Civil War. Far and away. It was so far beyond the pale that it makes every other action in our entire military history look innocent. It was a disgrace.
This time all you “yankees” are welcome to join our side for states’ rights. In fact, if the south had prevailed the states’ right issue would have been resolved and this bill would never have seen the light of day. So, let’s get it right this time.
Ironic analogy....given that it was Lincoln and the defeat of the Confederacy that put us on the nationalist path that has given us Obama and ObamaCare.
Fort Sumter was a set up.
It see it more like Dredd Scott. In that case, the government sat in deliberation and declared that people of African ancestry could not be citizens of the United States.
Yesterday, the government sat in deliberation and declared that people were required to enter into a contract for health insurance, whether they wanted to or not.
Are we free citizens, or not? This is a matter that is worth fighting for. I think Ft. Sumter is coming, but I don't thin we've seen it yet.
Destroy the enemy's means to wage war. It worked over the skies in Germany in WWII not to mention Japan. The plantations were the primary source of funds continuing the war. If my son were a blue-belly, I think I would have supported Sherman much in the same way my father who fought in the Pacific favored using the Atomic bomb... to end the war.
And they were flying the bonnie blue flag. I found it interesting that in one state that prohibited a band from playing Dixie, that they played “The Bonnie Blue Flag” and the left wings dipsh**s didn’t have a clue. This was a couple years back.
It was also incredibly successful. I say that as a Southerner. We can learn from every example, and nothing weakens an enemy faster than total war. We can use that also.
And for once, the Democrats were the stupid party. ;-)
Yep, it was the North starting a war so they could force the south back into the Union.
A reminder of how far the feds ARE willing to go.
Where was the South when New England was standing up for states' rights from 1801 to 1815? The South was calling them traitors.
Do you know why the South seceded from the Union? Because Lincoln was elected President. He hadn't even been inaugurated and they had a hissy fit and seceded. Furthermore, they knew good and well that Abraham Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery in those states where it already existed because the Constitution gave it ironclad protection. His only "crime" was not wanting slavery to spread throughout the country. Because of this, the planters seceded from the Union in a typical Democrat hissy-fit.
"States' rights?" I got three words for you: Fugitive Slave Law.
Actually it was the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88.
Actually it was the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88.”
Heh heh...looking for original sin can be a gas.
Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting take on Sherman and his methods. Sherman basically destroyed infrastructure, not people. There was no genocide. His troops were isntructed to respond to resistance, which they did, but those occasions became less and less as his march proceeded. A brilliant tactic for the day. Those who did not resist learned a lesson - for good or ill - that they would never forget.