Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
That point is moot in relation to this argument.
Virginia had the right to secede, and exercised that right.
It was a lawful action on the part of Virginia.
This statement is objectively false. Not only do Lee's critics hold Marse Roberts responsible for the depredations of his forces in Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania, but Lee himself admitted to them and tried to justify them on the basis of similar tactics in use by Union forces in Virginia (which did not, in fact, occur.) Lee's rationalization that the gratuitous destruction in South Central Pennsylvania was what "is happening in Virginia every day," has been thoroughly demolished by objective historians. Furthermore, the diaries of many in Lee's army regarding the Sack of Chambersburg make it clear that even enlisted men objected to what was done, and many wanted no part of it.
Confederate Armies avoided contact with Union forces? Seriously? You must think the war was fought entirely in Northern Virginia. Here's a news flash for you: It wasn't. Southern historians have focused on the War in Northern Virginia because in many other theaters after 1861 the Confederates were beaten, often badly. Furthermore, as Mosby, Quantrill and Forrest amply demonstrated, the Confederates had no qualms about attacking Union targets -- especially if they were defenseless civilians.
What kept Lee from attacking Union forces was simply this: while brilliant in situations in which he could make use of defensive fortifications, defensive tactics, and interior lines, Lee was largely incompetent on the attack.
He got his ass thoroughly kicked at Malvern Hill, and after that slaughter learned nothing from it, choosing to repeat the same mistake under even more unfavorable circumstances at Gettysburg, with even more disastrous results.
"Lee's Perfect Battle" at Chancellorsville was entirely Stonewall's perfect battle; it would never have happened had not an overconfident Lee blundered into Hooker's trap, leaving him no choice but the suicidal decision to divide his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy.
Lee's army preferred defense because their commander lacked the skill for large scale offensive operations, had no ability to supply his army over long distances, and because after Chancellorsville he had only one decent Corps Commander [James Longstreet.]
The claim that Lee's army never caused unnecessary damage or harm is laughable Southern revisionism. When Lee failed to do so, it was only because he lacked the means. He made two desperate attempts to project the War into Northern territory in force, at Antietam and Gettysburg. In both attempts, he failed. After that, he came to understand his limitations, even if Southern revisionists have not.
And, therein lies the problem of why the Civil War will always be a controversial topic. What you and others call "mis-information" is, in the south, fact.
And, what those of us in the south believe is misinformation, you believe is fact. And you think your facts trump mine and I think that my facts trump yours.
Which leaves us right back where we started.
Except of course, for the single greatest atrocity of the war, the Lawrence Massacre, when Confederate irregulars murdered up to 200 men and boys, most of them unarmed civilians, and a good many of them by throwing them alive into burning buildings.
At the time of the pretended secession, tariffs were low, at the request of the south. The tariff collection was in part low because false values could be assigned to imports, so that lower than real tariffs could be paid.
That was the real advantage of the new tariffs: Tax was assigned to amounts of goods by type of good. Much harder cheat.
Of course when cheating it was common to buy off the customs official. No wonder they were unhappy. Under straightforward smuggling they didn’t get a cut.
Rather the gallant hood of Texas found Hell in Tennessee.
The even more gallant Schofield and Thomas slowed him, stopped him, and pursued Hood to destruction.
Rather there were no immigration barriers before the 20th century. The oldest continuously operating store in Los Angeles is a Japanese candy store, showing some degree of continuity of our immigrant community here.
The irony is that the Democrat model for the American Future is the southern slave plantation.
At Arlington, most of the slaves were white. When RE Lee took over management, the first thing he did was to set up whipping posts.
The Democrats still intend to rule, despite local traditions, and despite law, morals, or good manners.
I spend 4 years in a small Texas town that used to be famous for matresses, saving the largest local company from itself. When I got there they had over 3000 trucks on their front yard that they couldn’t get the Army to accept. Their ‘solution’ to the engineering problem was wrong as it wasn’t a strength, but rather a stiffness issue. The in house engineers who knew the problem were ignored because they were Chinese ethnics (who used computer aided modeling, which management didn’t find persuasive as they didn’t understand resonance). Every manufacturing station was racially segregated.
And for saving the company in 6 months, I was called by management, in front of the assembled company, a ‘carpet bagger’ and I and my black wife were routinely refused service in local restaurants. Local judges were corrupt.
On the other hand, gun stores were well stocked, and I rally enjoyed my range time.
After 9/11 I returned to California and went back to work on better ways to kill people. Its a living.
Except that secession was started before the tax was passed.
Cause and effect. The one that occurs first may, or may not be the cause.
The one that occurs last can never be the cause.
Secession, or the pretense at it, was the cause of the tariff increase being passed.
Very true. The new info i referenced will come out in a book in June this year— an incredible find of private personal letters. Written by a parallel line of relations to Hood, a Sam Hood. Should be very interesting.
The whole TN campaign should never have been carried out. US was seriously in control of the area just for starters. So much wasted lives— Franklin a debacle.
Per Article 3 of the constitution, controversies between the states, or between the states and the federal government are to be resolved with the supreme court acting as original jurisdiction.
That is who decides. That the insurrectionists didn’t even attempt peaceful resolution in that way tells us everything about their expectation that the law was on their side.
Trade on the Mississippi was so important that the state legislature of Mississippi failed to mention it.
Darned good food.
Why did Lincoln invade Virginia?
I don't agree, nor did many Virginians at the time, especially those in Western Virginia.
But regardless, it's your point which is moot in relation to this discussion, FRiend.
That's because, Constitutionally, you have a right to say any d*mn fool thing you want to say: go ahead, take your soap box to a street corner somewhere, and declare your secession from whatever it is that you want to secede from -- from the United States, from the world, from mankind, h*ll you can declare secession from the whole Universe, if you want to, and the Constitution will not touch you.
Provided, provided, provided FRiend, that you don't break any laws.
Now, once you begin breaking laws, then the government has some authority it will exert over you, unpleasant authority, which you will not like.
And if you go so far as to start and declare war on your government, then it might well end in your death, which, of course, will accomplish your total secession from everything.
I'd call that suicide by secession. Don't do it.
But that is precisely what Virginia (and Tennessee) did.
In one "brilliant" stroke, they voted to both secede and declare war on the United States.
And the results are that Virginia and Tennessee arguably suffered more from the Civil War than any other states.
But, at least you can't say: they didn't get what they wanted.
Would like to see references for each of these assertions.
Sorry, but a famous American, a hero of mine, once said (and is often quoted):
That was John Adams, in 1770, defending British soldiers for the Boston massacre.
So facts are facts, and myths are, well, not necessarily.
That's the purpose of this thread.
Here is a summary of that sequence of events:
So, the short answer to why did Lincoln "invade" Virginia, is: because Virginia and its Confederacy declared war on the United States.
FWIW see it for the outstanding acting. From a purely historical standpoint it takes a lot of liberties.
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.