Posted on 11/06/2014 11:30:29 AM PST by Fenhalls555
I’m jealous. You’re a lucky guy.
Sir, I’ve read all the posts and agree with yours totally.
Thanks!
That was what I thought but was too lazy to look it up.
Sounds like you’ve bought into the revisionist bilge about GA Custer. He was a fine cavalry officer, the equal of Fightin’ Joe Wheeler or George Pickett. Yes, he was a flamboyant self-promoter, but his audacity and courage earned him the recognition he got.
His final mistakes at the Bighorn were less his than his fellow commanders’. It’s only since the losers started rewriting history that Custer became the empty-headed braggart you describe.
Thank you. What a kind compliment!
Obama needs something to distract from the news leaks about the Bergdahl “swap” (which itself was supposed to be a ra-ra photo op to distract from the IRS scandal and other bad news).
Thought he got shot through his open mouth shouting orders?
Always had respect for Lt. Cushing....
Agreed....Chamberlain was like Teddy Roosevelt when it came to exaggeration of his exploits.
Nobody every considered Emory Upton for this award, even though his tactics turned the Battle of Spotsylvania around for the Union.
Wesley Merritt, Phil Sheridan, and James Wilson were all more worthy of the medal than Chamberlain.
Well if it ain’t my favorite Confederate on the compost heap, ol’ Johnny Reb wanna be himself! How ya doin’ cousin? Yeah, sure what ever your history tells you big boy. That’s why Lee had his treasonous ass all the up in PA. Been missin’ ya cuz, where ya been so long? So, they let back on FR.
The South was fighting a war to be allowed to secede.
To achieve its ends, all the Confederacy needed was the removal of Union troops from Confederate soil and to be left alone.
The Union, on the other hand was the one who invaded, burned all not seized, and generally laid waste to the terrain.
Getting the harbor cleared of a Union Fort was the purpose of Sumpter, and had the war been about conquering the Union, Maryland would have been occupied by Southern forces long before Northern State Militias invaded.
The early war would have been fought farther north, not a series of defensive battles in Virginia.
No, the South took up arms to preserve the institution of slavery and expand it into Kansas. You seem like a smart guy, do you really think Lincoln, or any president would have just sat on his hands and let the country be split in two?
Thanks for playing, try again some time.
‘’The average southerner didn’t even own slaves’’. No, they didn’t. They were the tools for the owners. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
That would have been the constitutional thing to do. Of course, if you read about what Lincoln actually did while in office, it is pretty evident that “Honest Abe” had even less regard for the restraints of the Constitution than the current president form Illinois does. I believe the reason that nobody was ever tried for treason after the war is because secession would have probably been found to be legal and proper.
Secession proper and legal? Can you point that out to me in the Constitution? Seriously, I’d like to see that. The Civil War was about the South wanted to preserve slavery and expand it into Kansas. As to what Lincoln did when the South succeeded refer to Article 1;Section 9.
The “Civil War” was about several States trying to tell the central federal government to back off.
To claim that war was about slavery is like claiming the Revolutionary War was about tea.
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.