Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites
Reuters via Lycos.com ^ | 12/22/2002 | Alan Elsner

Posted on 12/22/2002 7:56:45 AM PST by GeneD

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-579 next last
To: Keith
he's no god...just the greatest president we ever had.

I must ask, are you a public school teacher?
151 posted on 12/22/2002 7:00:01 PM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: FirstFlaBn
Excellent post, sir. Thank you for including the names of the panel - the usual suspects, I see.
152 posted on 12/22/2002 7:01:34 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Of course, the breeding and trading of slaves was allowed in the confederate states.

As well as the Union.
153 posted on 12/22/2002 7:03:57 PM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Hard core secessionists in the Deep South welcomed Lincoln's election because it would strengthen secessionist sentiment in the Southern states. Since secessionism was already in the air, and since many secessionists thought that Lincoln's election might help them to win others over to their cause, secession must have had deeper causes than either Lincoln's election or his economic policies.
154 posted on 12/22/2002 7:04:02 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: x
Yes, the fire-eaters welcomed Lincoln's election, but a lot of the leaders of the South acceded to secession with extreme reluctance.
155 posted on 12/22/2002 7:05:57 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
There is no Southern bias at Gettysburg--none at all. What this panderer to Leftwing theory is attacking is the balanced view of an historic period, which arose after the passions of the War died down, and Americans North & South looked more objectively at their history. Now the leftwing academic theorists are taking over, and we are going to have historic revisionist propaganda of the worst order.

To put this all in perspective, one needs to recall that the South, which was in the minority at the time of the War was in an even more outnumbered position in the 1890s, when Americans, in general moved towards better feelings. It is patently absurd to suggest that the South, ruined and impoverished in this period, would have been able to propagandize sites run by the Federal Government.

This is just one more example of the viciously intolerant mindset of the Academic "Liberal." These people will not be happy until they erase every trace of traditional American culture. If we let them prosper in this endeavor, we deserve the "1984" version of the "Brave New World," they have in mind.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

156 posted on 12/22/2002 7:06:10 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
This is just one more example of the viciously intolerant mindset of the Academic "Liberal." These people will not be happy until they erase every trace of traditional American culture.

They are overreaching and ensuring their own defeat. Any fairminded person, who might otherwise not have cared one bit about something that happened 150 years ago, will rebel against this sort of stuff.

157 posted on 12/22/2002 7:08:51 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Keith
Wars require passion.

Very true. I think that gets left out of a lot of the arguments made here. The war was midwifed by the excited, irrational mood of the day. Just looking at it as a rational conflict of principles doesn't explain why it happened.

158 posted on 12/22/2002 7:12:36 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Keith
The other whining complaint is that Lincoln was unconstitutional in suspending Habeas Corpus. Again, read your Constitution...Art. I, Sec. 9... "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So are you saying he had the right to suspend habeas corpus or not?
159 posted on 12/22/2002 7:20:44 PM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DensaMensa
The application of force is derived from the political goal.Unconditional surrender, bomb the hell out of them. What Sherman did would be labeled a war crime today, regardless of the political goal according to the current Laws of War.
160 posted on 12/22/2002 7:22:35 PM PST by flyer182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: GWELO; shuckmaster
"The civil war was not fought over slavery.Most people in the north didnt care about freeing the slaves."

After the "emancipation proclamation" 2,000 yankee officers and 30,000 enlisted men left the federal army. They did not sign up to "free the slaves" and when Lincoln & Co. tried to turn the war into just that, the troops started defecting.

Besides that, the emanciplation proclamation did not free any slaves north of the Mason Dixon line (or below it for that matter). Wonder if the revised history of the Gettysburg park will mention that?

161 posted on 12/22/2002 7:23:06 PM PST by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
It is also failing to preserve the 700,000 items in its collection, including 350,000 maps, documents and photographs, many of which were rotting away or crumbling into dust until they were put into temporary storage.

What use are these? I imagine they are completely unPC- let's just burn them and save some space.

162 posted on 12/22/2002 7:23:45 PM PST by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address and returned to a White House maintained by slaves.

And where the capitol building was being built by slaves.

163 posted on 12/22/2002 7:27:03 PM PST by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wasp69; Keith
I have the impression Keith is saying might makes right.
164 posted on 12/22/2002 7:33:21 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
Bump
165 posted on 12/22/2002 7:36:15 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith
One more fine reason to homeschool!!!
166 posted on 12/22/2002 7:40:58 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
Isn't that a private park?
167 posted on 12/22/2002 7:44:58 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Isn't that a private park?

That's what I asked. But of course the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as the Supreme Court's Bob Jones decision, shows that sometimes it doesn't matter whether something is public or private.

168 posted on 12/22/2002 7:47:28 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I don't know about "extremely." I've learned not to trust politicians who talk about their "heavy hearts," but to be sure, some were more enthusiastic, and others more reluctant.

The existence of hard-core secessionist sentiment predating and even trying to precipitate Lincoln's election indicates that secession in many states was more than just a defensive reaction to the election and Lincoln's policies. The ground was being prepared for years in advance.

One certainly can -- and probably ought to -- distinguish between the first wave of secessions and the last which did have more of a reactive character. Doing so indicates that Southerners, like Northerners, were far from united about what to do. But to leave enthusiastic secessionism and radical Southern nationalism out of the picture is to miss an essential element.

169 posted on 12/22/2002 7:48:03 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: PistolPaknMama
After the "emancipation proclamation" 2,000 yankee officers and 30,000 enlisted men left the federal army.

Don't forget the draft riots in NYC. Seems to me that started up about that same time, and for the same reason.

Besides that, the emancipation proclamation did not free any slaves north of the Mason Dixon line (or below it for that matter).

Technically, it purported to free only those slaves in areas not then under federal control. Areas which were (and a number of them are specifically enumerated therein) were excluded.

The EP totally failed to impress the leaders of the British Government, one of whom was heard to remark that Lincoln was abolishing slavery only in those places where he had no authority to do it, while preserving it within his own jurisdiction. But it found traction enough with the British public, and the Government eventually came to heel. That was the point, after all.

170 posted on 12/22/2002 7:57:18 PM PST by thulldud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: x
I agree with that, especially with the distinction you draw between the first and second waves of secession.

When the Upper South refused to secede, Lincoln had in fact won a huge political victory, as Seward, unlike Lincoln, realized. But Lincoln proceeded to throw that victory away. The Lower South was not in a position to make a go of it, economically. Had the Lower South been allowed to secede peacefully -- as Seward and many others wanted -- it would probably have had to sue for readmission to the Union inside a short time.

The war, which ended up costing 600,000 lives, was thus unnecessary, and only ended up being precipitated by Lincoln's hasty actions, which were just bad statesmanship -- Lincoln totally misunderstood what Southern Unionism meant. The Southern Unionists opposed secession, but they were totally unwilling to use force to compel seceding states to stay within the Union.

171 posted on 12/22/2002 7:57:56 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"And you base this on?"

You must have the same response software as Walt.

172 posted on 12/22/2002 8:05:00 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Back in October I drove up to Baltimore to visit my son. While I was there, he and I drove to Antietam Battlefield (he's a bit of a Civil War buff). We didn't tour the battlefield - it was raining intermittantly - but we watched the introductory film. There was nothing sympathetic to the South in that - it could have been made by Ken Burns. I found particularly offensive a prominent quote attributed to Lincoln where he alleged that if he could have his way the war would end, but God's will was otherwise. This blasphemous sentiment was repeated, as is well known, in the 2nd Inaugural.

My point is in short - I don't believe this BS about "Southern bias" at the National Parks. My son visits Gettysburg a lot, I'm going to email this Reuters article to him and will be interested to get his take on it.

173 posted on 12/22/2002 8:08:15 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Note on the Gettysburg Address
by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

174 posted on 12/22/2002 8:14:01 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #175 Removed by Moderator

To: GeneD
'"We'd be happy to address the members of civic, social, historical, and other groups -- large and small -- both about the museum plans and about the General Management Plan," said Superintendent John Latschar.

If your organization is interested, call the park Public Affairs Office at (717) 334-1124 x452. "
176 posted on 12/22/2002 8:22:04 PM PST by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
The only Southern "bias" at Gettysburg is that the giftshop sells more Confederate Battle flags than any other item.
177 posted on 12/22/2002 8:33:28 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Vigilanteman; Sparta; Abcdefg; DWSUWF; widowithfoursons; hgro; SAMWolf; ...
Perhaps a phone call is in order:

"We'd be happy to address the members of civic, social, historical, and other groups -- large and small -- both about the museum plans and about the General Management Plan," said Superintendent John Latschar.

If your organization is interested, call the park Public Affairs Office at (717) 334-1124 x452."
178 posted on 12/22/2002 8:36:46 PM PST by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"The only Southern "bias" at Gettysburg is that the giftshop sells more Confederate Battle flags than any other item."

Well, you can surely understand why the powers that be don't like that.

179 posted on 12/22/2002 8:42:01 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Then what were these battles fought about. I will tell you. The southern states had laws making slaves property ang giving them the right to retrive their property anywhere they could find it. They often tracked their slaves up North and kidnapped them. The North objected to this and there were several small battles fought over this.

The southern states claimed the right to their property while the nothern states were actively helping slaves escape bondage. Many laws were repealed making it more and more difficult for Slaves to re retrived from the North. Eventually the southern states broke away because they felt they had a better chance of maintaining their slaves this way.

It was all about slavery in one way or another.
180 posted on 12/22/2002 8:44:34 PM PST by ImphClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Keith
he's no god...just the greatest president we ever had.

Now that's a matter of personal preference on his ability as president. I tend to favor Jefferson, Coolidge, and Reagan. But yes, Lincoln is no god. Unfortunately there are some out there who seem to think he is, and that is what I take issue with.

181 posted on 12/22/2002 8:55:26 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
It's a beautiful place. I hope it stays that way.

We were there several years ago on the 4th. The crowd was very intergrated, with many, many black families there celebrating.
182 posted on 12/22/2002 9:28:28 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Jael
Posted by Jael to agrandis 12/22/2002 7:44 PM PST #167

Isn't that a private park?

I believe so, and I didn't mean to imply that it was under the NPS - I was just going from one subject to another in my post. Rambling, in other words.

183 posted on 12/22/2002 9:39:26 PM PST by agrandis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Keith
The other whining complaint is that Lincoln was unconstitutional in suspending Habeas Corpus. Again, read your Constitution...Art. I, Sec. 9... "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

That is true. Pay close attention to that clause's role in the document though. It is a claus of Article I, which begins "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is accordingly a power of the legislature, not the president. This is in congruence with historical common law and the reading of the U.S. Constitution given by the nation's early jurists and founders.

John Marshall affirmed this view writing for the majority in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout in 1807 - "The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revision that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide."

While Taney tried to say that Lincoln couldn't do this, only Congress could, Lincoln disagreed and challenged Taney to enforce it.

The case arose in 1861 before the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland on the petition of Merryman, who was imprisoned under the suspension of habeas corpus. Taney, the sitting judge on that circuit at the time, responded by following the legal procedure for habeas corpus petitions and served a writ to Merryman's imprisoner, General Cadwalader, ordering them to appear in court to state the cause. Cadwalader responded to the writ with a refusal to appear, asserting that the president had suspended the writ of habeas corpus, permitting him to hold Merryman and others.

Taney responded by again ordering Cadwalader to appear in court before him on the issue of suspending habeas corpus and the order was refused, leaving the case before his court unanswered. Taney responded by issuing a ruling in which he struck down the president's unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. The ruling was made citing Marshall's Supreme Court ruling in Bollman as its precedent. Taney had it delivered to Lincoln, who was then obliged to either accept the ruling or file an appeal from the circuit court to the United States Supreme Court.

Lincoln refused to do either and instead ignored the ruling. His action violated the constitutional judiciary system of the United States and, under other circumstances could have easily been grounds for his impeachment.

184 posted on 12/22/2002 9:44:41 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Keith
since Lincoln was CIC in a case of open rebellion he had to act.

Arguably yes. The issue though is the extent of his authority to act and the Constitution indicates that one major action he claimed for himself, suspending habeas corpus, was outside of his authority.

If this was such a craven theft of Congress' powers,why didn't Congress act upon Taney's ruling?

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and Taney's ruling on that suspension occurred while Congress was out of session. The Constitution gives the president the power to call Congress into session, which would have been the proper course of action had Lincoln wanted habeas corpus suspended. He did not do so and instead acted on his own by asserting a power he did not constitutionally have.

I'm just saying that in a situation where if Maryland had seceeded, DC would have been surrounded by enemy territory, Lincoln did what he had to and Congress was grateful for his prompt action in those circumstances.

Even so, acting to address the situation in Maryland is NOT the same as suspending habeas corpus as a means to address that situation. The latter was the issue that came before Taney's court and Taney ruled appropriately on it. Lincoln could have easily addressed the situation in a constitutional way by either (a) calling Congress into session to suspend the writ, or (b) stating cause for arrest in the case of Merryman and the others. In fact when Merryman's petition was recieved by the court, Taney instructed his captors that they could state cause for his arrest and legally retain him in prison.

Which is why both the Executive and Legislative branches were all to happy to ignore Taney's ruling.

The legislative branch was out of session during the ruling and therefore could not weigh in until several months after it. The executive branch on the other hand, being the party that had committed the unconstitutional act, was bound by the processes of the judicial system, themselves set up under the Constitution, to either abide by the ruling or appeal it. Lincoln did neither, and accordingly violated the judicial system's constitutional authority in addition to the initial constitutional violation itself.

185 posted on 12/22/2002 10:00:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
...he and I drove to Antietam Battlefield (he's a bit of a Civil War buff). We didn't tour the battlefield - it was raining intermittantly - but we watched the introductory film. There was nothing sympathetic to the South in that - it could have been made by Ken Burns.

I had a similar experience at Andersonville. The film there repeatedly juxtaposed Nazi treatment of prisoners with Confederate treatment of prisoners, as though they were comparable.

The film was purportedly about prisoners of war in general, not just about Andersonville prisoners. However, it did not point out that the North withheld food and supplies from Confederate prisoners in Northern prisons, even though the North had the food and supplies to give them. By any standards, the North's actions in that regard were a war crime.

At Andersonville, the Confederate guards and the prisoners ate similar rations, and a large number of the guards died.

186 posted on 12/22/2002 10:32:03 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Nothing infuriates me more than the thoroughly dishonest attempt to compare and equate the Confederacy with Nazi Germany. The most famous practitioner is Arthur Schlesinger, also there is Gary Wills (notorious dupe of Michael Bellesiles). An occasional; practitioner on this forum is WhiskeyPapa. But I think I reserve my greatest contempt for what was probably behind the film that you saw at Andersonville. That is to say, the intent to create the association in the mind of the viewer, while all the time claiming that their intent is only to make a film "about prisoners of war in general."
187 posted on 12/22/2002 10:52:46 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Poor whites were fighting for white supremacy."

That was not something that they needed to fight for. If you think that you have no historical understanding. But then, we already knew that you have no historical understanding, didn't we?

188 posted on 12/22/2002 10:59:43 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Anyone who longs for the "good old days" of the Confederacy is a loser, and Southerners who still harp on the Civil War are double-losers. The south lost. I'm glad. We have a terrific union now and the world would therefore not have been as great a place if the south had seceded.

If indeed these 28 national parks have been perpetuating this alleged lame sympathy with the south at the expense of losing valuable artifacts, then I'm glad they are being reworked. Further, if they are presenting the story of the civil war through dusty curatorship instead of the compelling telling of history, all the more reason to overhaul them. There's nothing more boring than a librarian telling the story behind a bunch of unintegrated, miscellaneous artifacts. That's why the Smithsonian is due for an overhaul, too.
189 posted on 12/22/2002 11:01:08 PM PST by paulklenk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"There was no secession."

There was secession, and secession lasted until it was put down by the Federal government which was able to do so because they had available more young men whom they could exploit as cannon fodder to achieve their ends.

190 posted on 12/22/2002 11:05:50 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Whether or not Southern politicians decided on seccession because of slavery, tarriffs or what end of a soft boiled egg should be opened, the botttom line was that young men had to go out and settle the matter on the battlefield."

No it didn't.

Wlat the fool

191 posted on 12/22/2002 11:09:10 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

Comment #192 Removed by Moderator

war of northern agression

Let's see here. When Lincoln was elected President, the southern states started their ill-advised attempt to leave the United States. In another ill-advised incident, they launched an attack on the United States. And this is referred to as northern aggression? That's Million Man Revisionism right there. God forbid the President of the United States to preserve the Union.

193 posted on 12/22/2002 11:17:50 PM PST by GOPyouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
"For the past 100 years, we've been presenting this battlefield as the high watermark of the Confederacy and focusing on the personal valor of the soldiers who fought here,"

Actually it goes back to 1863:

...We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

-- From Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

194 posted on 12/22/2002 11:27:18 PM PST by krb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPyouth
they launched an attack on the United States.

Really? Cause the only attack I know of is one on a little fort occupied by hostile forces sitting in the middle of their own harbor. The Lincoln, on the other hand, marched an army into the south for the sole reason of coercing its obediance to the north.

195 posted on 12/22/2002 11:45:38 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"There was no secession."

There was secession, and secession lasted until it was put down by the Federal government which was able to do so because they had available more young men whom they could exploit as cannon fodder to achieve their ends.

The Supreme Court said there was no secession, even referring to the "so-called Confederate states."

To your second point; did you know that the insurgent area was 10% bigger than the loyal area? Did you know that the available manpower in the north was only 3:2 bigger than the south?

Did you know that a general rule of military operations is that it takes 3 attackers to dislodge one defender?

On paper, the rebel states couldn't lose. This was said in Europe right up into 1865.

What happened?

What happened is that supposed rebel superiority in both the operational art and morale/motivation was inferior in the rebel area to that of the loyal area.

"Three hundred thousand Yankees are stiff in southern dust."

Isn't that how the song goes? But the Union kept coming -- the rebels folded and went home.

Walt

196 posted on 12/23/2002 3:35:31 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
The Civil? War proved that might makes right in the eyes of the world, that the people in the North were willing to follow a president who ignored their constitutional rights, and that a bunch of farmers in 1776 wouldn't have won without help from outside powers willing to supply arms and training.

Only if you believe that Lincoln was acting in the wrong. If you believe that the southern rebellion was illegal, that the southern acts of unilateral secession were unconstitutional, and that Lincoln was in the right in opposing the southern rebellion then that doesn't make the Northern cause right just because they won. And it wouldn't make the Northern cause any less right if they had lost.

The Southern armies might have won a guerilla war, but marching en masse to battlefields against an opponent with three times your population is a sure way to lose.

But the southern leadership started the war firm in their belief that one good old southern boy could whip ten of those miserable, immigrant Yankees. They badly underestimated the resolve of the Union and overestimated their support for their cause.

197 posted on 12/23/2002 3:37:39 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: GOPyouth
God forbid the President of the United States to preserve the Union.

The neo-rebs throw up their hands in alarm at the most reasonable actions by the government. It's all straight from "1984".

Walt

198 posted on 12/23/2002 3:38:09 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: PistolPaknMama
After the "emancipation proclamation" 2,000 yankee officers and 30,000 enlisted men left the federal army. They did not sign up to "free the slaves" and when Lincoln & Co. tried to turn the war into just that, the troops started defecting.

What do you base this on?

199 posted on 12/23/2002 3:41:22 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
I had a similar experience at Andersonville. The film there repeatedly juxtaposed Nazi treatment of prisoners with Confederate treatment of prisoners, as though they were comparable.

What I am starting to see in the record now is that the rebel government deliberately mistreated US POW's because they wanted a return to the exchange cartels. They wanted that so they could abuse the cartel system and continue to use exchanged soldiers who had given their paroles not to fight any more.

There is no good side to the confederate story.

Walt

200 posted on 12/23/2002 4:16:41 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-579 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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