To: Ditto
To match the Confederates who already had 100,000 men in their army. Virginia had already been "invaded" by a foreign army when the Governor invited Confederate troops from Texas and other deep south states into his state over a month before they voted to seceed. I'll have to check that chronology. Nevertheless, in retrospect, we can clearly see that the north was the invader. The south wanted to be left alone and they stated as much many times. Jackson and Lee both fought to defend their homes - no other reason. The north committed many atrocities and I tire of watching people paint the north white and south black. The north was the aggressor, and Lincoln intimated in his 2nd inaugural that the judgmeent of God had fallen on the ENTIRE nation, not just the south.
146 posted on
01/15/2004 1:40:09 PM PST by
exmarine
( sic semper tyrannis)
To: exmarine; Ditto
Check away. The confederate congress passed legislation authorizing an army of 100,000 men for 12 months service on March 6, 1861, well over a month before Lincoln's call for troops in response to the southern aggression at Sumter.
To: exmarine
Nevertheless, in retrospect, we can clearly see that the north was the invader. The south was the insurgent. The United States Army could not invade itself. They have the right, duty and sworn obligation to go anywhere in this nation to put down an armed insurrection.
151 posted on
01/15/2004 2:06:27 PM PST by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: exmarine
Lincoln was only the aggressor if the states had the right to seceede. That right was and is very much in dispute.
Andrew Jackson (no yankee by the way) pretty much summed it up with his Proclamation to South Carolina. Secession is treason and will be met with force. Revisionist neo-confederates pretend like the south had no idea their actions could lead to bloodshed.
The idea that secession was universally supported before Lincoln came along is either dishonest or ignorant.
The South engaged in the election of 1860. They refused to abide by that election.
Maybe you can tell me what is the use of a republican form of government if noone is bound to ever abide by the terms of that government?
And just how can people(not necessarily you) go on an on how we are not a democracy, but see nothing wrong with mob rule at the state level (50% + 1) taking ALL of the citizens of a state out of that republican form of government.
And there were attrocities committed on both sides. The hypocracy drips off both sides.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson