Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1913 Gettysburg Reunion of Blue and Gray
Huntington News ^ | June 14, 2013 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

Posted on 06/15/2013 2:53:18 PM PDT by BigReb555

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last
To: ClearCase_guy

I’m just want the inevitable to start already.


101 posted on 06/16/2013 6:07:53 AM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

mark


102 posted on 06/16/2013 8:24:09 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Benito Cereno

Quite a remarkable man.


103 posted on 06/16/2013 8:55:41 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: laplata

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.


104 posted on 06/16/2013 8:56:22 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dsc
I can’t think of any sane person who would.

And yet that's exactly what thousands of them did.

105 posted on 06/16/2013 8:57:11 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ops33

Thank you.


106 posted on 06/16/2013 9:12:12 AM PDT by laplata (Liberals don't get it. Their minds have been stolen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: central_va
To bad the South didn’t have a scorched earth policy too. The South was to weak to make it very far into the North. But a good fantasy would be burning New York and DC to the ground.

The Confederates did indeed try to burn New York to the ground. And just like everything else they tried, they failed.

107 posted on 06/16/2013 9:24:09 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The truth is that Confederate troops typically did as much damage as they could whenever they invaded Union states.

Indeed, that was usually a main purpose of their raids -- to secure supplies for themselves and destroy the Union's facilities.

Sure, the example of Lee in Pennsylvania is often cited, but it was more the exception than the rule for Confederate forces operating in Union states & territories.


True Union states and territories, or border states and territories?

I'd consider the two vastly different. Missouri, Kansas and Kentucky for instance saw an enormous amount of brutality - by both sides - that had more to do with the fact that the side those states was going to take was indeterminate. At least in the eyes of a lot of the local population. Plus there were very long-standing internal animosities and feuds in those states that the Civil War allowed to spill into the open.
108 posted on 06/16/2013 10:58:26 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Yes, after the war, all was eventually forgiven, and nobody was tried as traitors.
But tell us, FRiend, which part of the word “treason” do you not understand?
/////////////

Well, FRiend, I will give you that Robert E. Lee, et al, were “traitors” to the US when you give me that George Washington, et al, were “traitors” to Great Britain.

We celebrate the right to secede from oppressive central Government.

In my view, the Confederates exercised precisely the same prerogative in choosing to secede from the Union that the original Thirteen Colonies did in choosing to secede from the King’s Realm.

Moreover, I have to ask you. What were the Yanks thinking when they actually FORGAVE a bunch of untrustworthy traitors? Answer? I honestly believe that down deep they knew these were no traitors. Subsequent history has borne out the wisdom of this decision (to drop any charges of treason).

Or, my short answer: Treason, my a$$.


109 posted on 06/16/2013 11:32:30 AM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Well, FRiend, I will give you that Robert E. Lee, et al, were “traitors” to the US when you give me that George Washington, et al, were “traitors” to Great Britain.

I will give you that. Even though the actions of the Founders predates the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution their actions would certainly have qualified as treason by anyone's definition.

In my view, the Confederates exercised precisely the same prerogative in choosing to secede from the Union that the original Thirteen Colonies did in choosing to secede from the King’s Realm.

And I'll grant you your view if you will identify the oppression that caused their secession. Unlike the Founders, who had no say in their government, the Southern states were represented in both houses of Congress, over-represented in the House. Southerners had held a disproportionate number of high level positions in Congress and the government. If the central government was indeed oppressive then the South played a large part in making it so. And replaced it with their own oppressive central government once they rebelled.

What were the Yanks thinking when they actually FORGAVE a bunch of untrustworthy traitors?

When you get right down to it, it was one Yankee who actually FORGAVE the South's acts of treason; Andrew Johnson. He issued three amnesty proclamations during his term which basically pardoned almost all the rebel leadership. He did this against the wishes of Congress, who were all out for a bunch of hangings. So your belief that "down deep they knew these were no traitors" is not supported by the facts.

110 posted on 06/16/2013 12:03:01 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx

There’s precious little comparison between the patriots of 1776 and the insurrectionists of 1861. But at least Washington had the integrity to acknowledge what he was doing was rebellion.


111 posted on 06/16/2013 12:03:17 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

I will give you that. Even though the actions of the Founders predates the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution their actions would certainly have qualified as treason by anyone’s definition.

//////////////

Please show me your posts denouncing Washington, et al, as traitors!


112 posted on 06/16/2013 12:52:53 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

There’s precious little comparison between the patriots of 1776 and the insurrectionists of 1861. But at least Washington had the integrity to acknowledge what he was doing was rebellion.

////////////////

Like it or not, the principle is the same, whether or not you agree with their position.

Free to secede. Deal with it.

Still true today.


113 posted on 06/16/2013 12:54:53 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

I will give you that. Even though the actions of the Founders predates the definition of treason as laid out in the Constitution their actions would certainly have qualified as treason by anyone’s definition.

///////////

Secession is not treason. Sorry to disappoint you.


114 posted on 06/16/2013 12:56:34 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Please show me your posts denouncing Washington, et al, as traitors!

I'm not British so I'm unlikely to denounce them the way someone from the UK might. And I would add that Washington, et al, were motivated enough by their cause to win their rebellion. Lee, et al, were not. Winning changes a lot of things.

115 posted on 06/16/2013 12:57:15 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

If the central government was indeed oppressive then the South played a large part in making it so. And replaced it with their own oppressive central government once they rebelled.

///////////////
Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that secession would not have been seen as a viable option if the Southern states felt that the Central Government was responsive to their concerns.


116 posted on 06/16/2013 12:58:26 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Secession is not treason. Sorry to disappoint you.

Secession as practiced by the Southern states was illegal. Sorry to disappoint you. And I'll agree that that in and of itself was not treason. Where the treason came in to play was when the Southern states chose to war against the government in order to further their aims.

117 posted on 06/16/2013 12:59:35 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that secession would not have been seen as a viable option if the Southern states felt that the Central Government was responsive to their concerns.

How was it not?

118 posted on 06/16/2013 1:00:58 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Lee, et al, were not.

/////////////////

Defeat does not necessarily denote lack of motivation. The Confederates were — in the end — outgunned, outmanned, and — the killer — out-technologied. I think the number of battles where smaller Confederate forces out-fought their more numerous Union opponents weakens your proposition considerably. Though some Southern leaders wanted to continue with a long-term guerilla war, Christian compassion ruled that out for many Southern leaders.

You are correct: Winning changes many things — but not the facts. Only those who get to teach their interpretation of the facts in Government schools. But this is your strongest argument, yet.


119 posted on 06/16/2013 1:05:25 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx

You’re wrong - but I get the impression that you’re no stranger to being wrong.

There was a little controversy over secession - at least the way the slavers practiced it - it was in all the papers. It turns out that on the field of battle, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion your notion comes up short.

Deal with it.


120 posted on 06/16/2013 1:05:54 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Taking a guided tour on horseback is moving and brought many a tear. . .especially when the tour guide read a very poignant letter from a soldier to his wife.


121 posted on 06/16/2013 1:06:09 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

If you do not know, read some history.

Whether or not you agree with the South’s complaints. They had complaints.

Unless you suggest that they decided on Secession because they were bored and had nothing better to do?


122 posted on 06/16/2013 1:11:12 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that secession would not have been seen as a viable option if the Southern states felt that the Central Government was responsive to their concerns.

Wrong again.

the slavers were the Central Government! The slavrocrisy wasn't satisfied with controlling the government - which they had for most of its then 70 years. At a time when slavery was losing its viability in most of the rest of the world the slavers insisted on expanding their interests and to hell with any other opinion.

The slavers had a temper tantrum when Lincoln was elected and acted like democrats always act - boorish fools.

123 posted on 06/16/2013 1:13:36 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
The Confederates were — in the end — outgunned, outmanned, and — the killer — out-technologied.

So were the colonists. But they won.

Though some Southern leaders wanted to continue with a long-term guerilla war, Christian compassion ruled that out for many Southern leaders.

Oh please. More like common sense and no desire to prolong the fighting.

Only those who get to teach their interpretation of the facts in Government schools.

Confederate wannabes have been teaching their own fairy tales almost from the moment the firing stopped.

124 posted on 06/16/2013 1:14:09 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
If you do not know, read some history.

I've read a lot of history, but none of those historians have been blessed with, shall we say, your imaginative view of the period. So please tell be what oppression you believed they were fighting against.

Unless you suggest that they decided on Secession because they were bored and had nothing better to do?

No, they decided to rebel to protect their institution of slavery from what they saw as the threat against its expansion posed by the Lincoln administration's opposition to it. But that is hardly oppression.

125 posted on 06/16/2013 1:17:49 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Photo at 11 --

John Lincoln Clem (August 13, 1851 – May 13, 1937) was a United States Army general who served as a drummer boy in the Union Army in the American Civil War. He gained fame for his bravery on the battlefield, becoming the youngest noncommissioned officer in Army history. He retired from the Army in 1915, having attained the rank of Brigadier General in the Quartermaster Corps. When advised he should retire, he requested to be allowed to remain on active duty until he became the last veteran of the Civil War still on duty in the Armed Forces. By special act of Congress on August 29, 1916, he was promoted to Major General one year after his retirement from the Army.

For those who were brought up in the 1950's and watched Disney, that would be Johnny Shiloh

126 posted on 06/16/2013 1:20:13 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter; Ditto; rockrr
Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South.

Well, there was that plan to burn down New York in 1864.

FWIW, "Copper" a not-very-good fictional TV series based on that event, is coming back for a second season next week.

127 posted on 06/16/2013 1:27:10 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mware
For those who were brought up in the 1950's and watched Disney, that would be Johnny Shiloh

With Moochie in the leading role.

128 posted on 06/16/2013 1:32:06 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: x
Well, there was that plan to burn down New York in 1864.

FWIW, "Copper" a not-very-good fictional TV series based on that event, is coming back for a second season next week.


Had heard of the plan, but not of the TV series. What station/network is it on? Are the back eps avail on the net somewhere? I'd like to watch it, even if sub-par.

Every war sees all sorts of planning done, most being discarded for a variety of reasons (including the "Are you nukkin' futz?!?" variety.

What matters is whether they're implemented, not just drawn up and presented. Of secondary importance is the stage to which they make it before being abandoned.

Case in point, following the Spanish American War the German General Staff (upon direction of the Kaiser) drew up plans to invade New York City and Boston and hold them for the "ransom" of the US's newly acquired colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific. (aside: Robert Conroy did a pretty decent alternate history novel, "1901", based on the plans actually being implemented).
129 posted on 06/16/2013 1:36:14 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Yeap, good old Toby Tyler.


130 posted on 06/16/2013 1:37:03 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: mware
Yeap, good old Toby Tyler.

Kevin Corcoran. The Clark Gable of the Disney movie machine. He was in Ol' Yeller, played Pollyanna's buddy, and was the youngest kid in Swiss Family Robinson.

131 posted on 06/16/2013 1:41:36 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
It's on BBC America. If you get the channel, you may be able to see the first season on demand.

The fires were actually set, so it wasn't just a plan, but the conflagration didn't materialize.

It was tied in with Lincoln's reelection. The Confederates had been willing to wait and see whether a peace candidate like McClellan could win, and when he didn't, agents struck.

132 posted on 06/16/2013 1:43:26 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter; x
Had heard of the plan, but not of the TV series. What station/network is it on? Are the back eps avail on the net somewhere? I'd like to watch it, even if sub-par.

BBC America. The new season starts next Sunday I think. I don't know if they're replaying last year ahead of time. As shows go it's no Justified but it has its moments. Compared to the crap on the networks it's a work of art.

133 posted on 06/16/2013 1:44:15 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mware

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv-OGa8H6Ys


134 posted on 06/16/2013 1:45:02 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Oh I bet that was lovely. I am a bit grim on a horse, however - probably not good for me. Cowboy at heart but not in reality.


135 posted on 06/16/2013 2:48:42 PM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

The Confederates were — in the end — outgunned, outmanned, and — the killer — out-technologied.

So were the colonists. But they won.

//////////////////////////

Different wars. Different facts. Bottom line: I am glad the Colonists won. I am sorry that the South lost, and most (though, apparently, not you) give them credit for giving it a noble effort with no lack of commitment or courage on their part.

////////////////

Though some Southern leaders wanted to continue with a long-term guerilla war, Christian compassion ruled that out for many Southern leaders.

Oh please. More like common sense and no desire to prolong the fighting.

///////////////////////////

Okay. Will not argue that point. Probably a bit of both.

//////////////////////

Only those who get to teach their interpretation of the facts in Government schools.

Confederate wannabes have been teaching their own fairy tales almost from the moment the firing stopped.

////////////////////////

Fairy tales abound on both sides, if you wish to speak in those terms. The biggest of which is that Robert E. Lee was a traitor.

So, alas, we have come full circle and gotten nowhere!


136 posted on 06/16/2013 4:45:10 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

No, they decided to rebel to protect their institution of slavery from what they saw as the threat against its expansion posed by the Lincoln administration’s opposition to it. But that is hardly oppression.

//////////////

Hmmm. I am shocked. ... SHOCKED that there is nothing in your convenient abridgement of the facts about States rights.

We are not going to get anywhere here.

You have made up your mind that the South was wrong to opt for Secession.

I, on the other hand, believe they were well within their rights.

And, no, it was not all about slavery, but, yes, it was in large part about slavery. I am not thrilled to admit that part, but I do.

Nonetheless: Slavery or no, the South was within its rights to opt for secession.

Else the Declaration and Constitution were rather odd in permitting secession only one time (i.e., from England), but after that, mandatory inclusion in a union voluntarily entered in the first place.


137 posted on 06/16/2013 4:51:48 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

The slavers had a temper tantrum when Lincoln was elected and acted like democrats always act - boorish fools.

///////////

Interesting interpretation of history. Let me think about that one!


138 posted on 06/16/2013 4:55:28 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Different wars. Different facts.

Different kind of men. Different kind of motivations.

I am sorry that the South lost, and most (though, apparently, not you) give them credit for giving it a noble effort with no lack of commitment or courage on their part.

No, I don't give them credit for jack. Their cause was not noble. Their courage was wasted.

Fairy tales abound on both sides, if you wish to speak in those terms. The biggest of which is that Robert E. Lee was a traitor.

Oh I've got a bigger one for you. The persistent claim that the South did not rebel over slavery.

139 posted on 06/16/2013 6:12:42 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx

The colonies didn’t secede from Great Britain - they openly rebelled against the crown.

I don’t think that anyone here said that no one could secede - just that they way the slavers tried to do it wasn’t jake.


140 posted on 06/16/2013 6:17:47 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Hmmm. I am shocked. ... SHOCKED that there is nothing in your convenient abridgement of the facts about States rights.

State's right to do what?

You have made up your mind that the South was wrong to opt for Secession...I, on the other hand, believe they were well within their rights.

The difference is that the Supreme Court ruled that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

And, no, it was not all about slavery, but, yes, it was in large part about slavery. I am not thrilled to admit that part, but I do.

So how can you possibly equate the Confederate cause with that of the Founding Fathers?

Nonetheless: Slavery or no, the South was within its rights to opt for secession.

Well you know what they say about opinions.

Else the Declaration and Constitution were rather odd in permitting secession only one time (i.e., from England), but after that, mandatory inclusion in a union voluntarily entered in the first place.

The colonists rebelled, they did not secede. And with the exception of the first 13, none of the state joined anything voluntarily. They were allowed to join only after a majority of the existing states decided to permit them to.

141 posted on 06/16/2013 6:18:49 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Different kind of men. Different kind of motivations.
/////////////////////

You are entitled to your smug, small-hearted, and — I would assert — ahistorical view of outstanding men such as Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, and James Longstreet, to name a few.


142 posted on 06/16/2013 6:27:55 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

I don’t think that anyone here said that no one could secede - just that they way the slavers tried to do it wasn’t jake.

//////////////////////

Interesting thought.

What — in your view — would have made their attempt at secession “jake?”


143 posted on 06/16/2013 6:28:54 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
No, I don't give them credit for jack.

Nice.

144 posted on 06/16/2013 6:29:45 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

The difference is that the Supreme Court ruled that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

//////////////////

The Supreme Court has ruled many things incorrectly. You have to do better than that.


145 posted on 06/16/2013 6:29:55 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

State’s right to do what?

////////////////////

Oh, I could start with managing the emissions level of their factories, for one.

Yep. We lost that one at Appomattox Court House


146 posted on 06/16/2013 6:32:14 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
You are entitled to your smug, small-hearted, and — I would assert — ahistorical view of outstanding men such as Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, and James Longstreet, to name a few.

And you're entitled to blow anything you want out of proportion.

147 posted on 06/16/2013 6:32:28 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
No, I don't give them credit for jack. Their cause was not noble. Their courage was wasted.

You should be congratulated, you pulled the hate and bile out of one of the Lincoln Coven for the whole world to see. The honesty of his remarks are refreshing.

148 posted on 06/16/2013 6:33:46 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx

Had they sought mutuality within their brother states.


149 posted on 06/16/2013 6:34:38 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
The Supreme Court has ruled many things incorrectly. You have to do better than that.

And it's wrong in this case because you say they are? You will have to do better than that.

150 posted on 06/16/2013 6:34:50 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson