Posted on 01/17/2016 1:26:17 PM PST by soakncider
Ya’ll come on down to Vicksburg, to the national park there. Wander among the graves at the National Cemetery. Then go gamble your sorry money at the casinos there on the river. The African-Americans there in Vicksburg will surely treat you northerners as the conquering army that broke all their chains. Bet you that.
There’s a couple of you guys that ought to be reading the Southern Poverty law Center’s newsletter instead of FR. And before you think you have me figured out, I have a ancestor that served under grant and was named governor over a territory. A miserable war, a test of America. But not the test that we are in now.
The Lost Cause nonsense never ends.
I think it shows that many states didn’t secede until after Lincoln made the call for 75000 troops. As for the price of beans in boston, the American Revolution was started at Lexington Green in response to the crown’s positioning of troops to put down the rebellion.
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. :-)
Let’s just stop with this talk about “a states right to secede”. The Recent Unpleasantness had nothing to do with “a states right to secede”. Y’all keep doing that. You go from “right to secede” and then start talking about the Confederates. The Confederacy was an evil empire. Of course “a state has a right to secede”. Stop conflating that with the entire group of slave states, and only the group of slave states, thinking for one minute that they were going to unilaterally rewrite the first Ammendment and go on their merry way. (Without actually being able to physically remove themselves.). One thing I can tell you, Reb, is that you ain’t gonna be practicing your peculiar institution ever, ever again on this continent. Go right ahead and spew “states rights la la la” if it makes you feel better. I’ll tell you this, if sympathize with the Confederacy, you are pro-slavery.
Thank you. There is only one ‘eye witness’ to Forrest nailing Union soldiers to logs and setting them on fire, so his testimony is dubious. And an investigation by the Union army exonerated Forrest personally of any wrongdoing.
This from the referenced book: “The military investigation thus ordered was carried out by General Brayman, Union commander at Cairo, who on April twenty-eighth sent a copy direct to Secretary Stanton, as ordered, and gave another to the Congressional committee when it visited Cairo.
Sherman’s judgment of the “massacre at Fort Pillow” as expressed in his Memoirs is that:
“No doubt Forrest’s men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest’s possession, that be was usually very kind to them.”
Also this from the same book: “The third main charge, that the “atrocities committed at Fort Pillow” were the result of deliberate policy, does not stand up under examination of the Union record.”
Also this from Wikipedia: “Forrest’s men insisted that the Union soldiers, although fleeing, kept their weapons and frequently turned to shoot, forcing the Confederates to keep firing in self-defense.[10] Their claim is consistent with the discovery of numerous Union rifles on the bluffs near the river.[18] The Union flag was still flying over the fort, which indicated that the force had not formally surrendered. A contemporary newspaper account from Jackson, Tennessee, states that “General Forrest begged them to surrender,” but “not the first sign of surrender was ever given.” Similar accounts were reported in both Southern and Northern newspapers at the time.[19]”
:-)
Forrest wasn’t exonerated - the tribunal decided not to prosecute. And I don’t care if you believe the account or not - you asked for a citation and I gave you one.
Why descend into that kind of invective?
The Confederacy is the only example of attempted secession.
I am not pro-slavery. I am pro-liberty, for everyone, of all races. That is the only argument being made.
You are the ones making it about African slavery. I am trying to point out the CURRENT absolute power of the federal government, which marches onward unimpeded. If you are happy with the unbridled power of the central government, that’s fine, but i’m not.
Yes, and I thank you.
Do a search on "Fort Pillow burning logs".
Oh, you have the judgment of God also, huh. The arrogance of the ignorant neo-confederate knows no bounds.
There were very few rapes BTW, and it wasn't official policy as he atrocities of Fort Pillow were. The rest of what you mentioned is what happens when you start a war.
Which part of the above article is nonsense?
So? A nation has a right to prepare as it sees fit.
As for the price of beans in boston, the American Revolution was started at Lexington Green in response to the crown’s positioning of troops to put down the rebellion.
I don't remember that on the list of grievances.
I'm not getting your obsession with troop movements. Nations move troops, happens all the time. The Confederates surrounded Fort Sumter, but the fighting didn't start until the South attacked.
Ignorant by choice.
Yes rapes were few, but the burning of crops and destruction of cities and towns certainly was official policy of the Lincoln administration.
Fort Pillow was an action against a military force by a military force, and the confederate generals in command were exonerated by the union army.
Read this excerpt provided by rockrr: http://civilwarhome.com/forrestpillow.htm
Please don’t resort to name-calling.
you: "The Confederacy is the only example of attempted secession." You are not getting my point. The "Confederacy" had nothing to do with legal secession. As I stated earlier, the founding principle of the Confederacy was the unalienable right of the white man to subjugate the black man. Therein lay the fundamental difference between the North and the South.
you: I am not pro-slavery. I am pro-liberty, for everyone, of all races. That is the only argument being made.
If you are pro Confederacy, you are pro slavery. That is inescapable. Sorry.
you: I am trying to point out the CURRENT absolute power of the federal government, which marches onward unimpeded. If you are happy with the unbridled power of the central government, that’s fine, but i’m not.
Then start another thread about that. Don't hijack your own thread.
Uh no. It was your hated Sherman that conducted part of the investigation, and he came to a couple narrow conclusions that didn't exonerate him, but just made him out of the area until the rebels finally decided to pull down the US flag. They kept the US flag up so they could keep killing surrendering union soldiers. Forrest gave the green light to the atrocities by saying beforehand that he would not be responsible. His soldiers knew what that meant, it meant they could torture and kill union soldiers. I was a trick he liked to pull more than once.
This from the referenced book: “The military investigation thus ordered was carried out by General Brayman, Union commander at Cairo, who on April twenty-eighth sent a copy direct to Secretary Stanton, as ordered, and gave another to the Congressional committee when it visited Cairo. Sherman’s judgment of the “massacre at Fort Pillow†as expressed in his Memoirs is that: “No doubt Forrest’s men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest’s possession, that be was usually very kind to them.†Also this from the same book: “The third main charge, that the “atrocities committed at Fort Pillow†were the result of deliberate policy, does not stand up under examination of the Union record.†Also this from Wikipedia: “Forrest’s men insisted that the Union soldiers, although fleeing, kept their weapons and frequently turned to shoot, forcing the Confederates to keep firing in self-defense.[10] Their claim is consistent with the discovery of numerous Union rifles on the bluffs near the river.[18] The Union flag was still flying over the fort, which indicated that the force had not formally surrendered. A contemporary newspaper account from Jackson, Tennessee, states that “General Forrest begged them to surrender,†but “not the first sign of surrender was ever given.†Similar accounts were reported in both Southern and Northern newspapers at the time.[19]â€
Again, that doesn't explain union soldiers being nailed to logs, floors, and walls, and then having those logs and huts set on fire, not on the testimony of one, but on the testimony of several.
Forrest hated the black soldier and any white soldier who fought alongside, he said so in his letters. And he never denied the atrocities to Richmond. He said he didn't have to.
Patrick Henry in St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775:
“Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other”...http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm
Declaration of Independence: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”
It definitely was on the list of grievances.
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.