"A comprehensive history of the United States from about 1845 until Appomattox... If you read only one book on the war, this one should probably be it."
I read that one. So there you are. Don't have to read another. Civil War is well back on my reading list.
I figure I know as much as I need to, and more than most. I've even visited a couple battlefields. Been to Andersonville Prison where the brutality of the Confederacy was visible in all the graves. The neglect of the prisoners was horrifying. They suffered in the heat and died of disease and starvation. I bet there were thousands of graves.
There's your heros, jethro. Starving and brutilzing prisoners. All for the grand southern cause.
"So if you recommend one, I'll take it with a handful of salt, please".
THEN Jethro sends you a couple of address' to check out and you reply with
"So there you are. Don't have to read another". cause you read what you wanted and not even consider his recommendations
not trying to get on anyones bad side just saw a person seeing ONLY what he wants to see.
If you want to discuss & learn more about the Civil War (which was not very civil)...why wouldn't you take his recommedations? You said reading up on the civil war is low on your list, than why are you in here discussing it with us?
And I recognize your attempts to rationalize it away. For what purpose? -- To make yourself look free thinking by trashing Abraham Lincoln and propping up traitors?
That doesn't make you a free thinker, jethro.
It makes you a guy with squirrely opinions and too much time on your hands.
As you can see the confederates held Washington, Jefferson and Jackson in high esteem. Doesn't sound like a people bent on treason, does it?"
Holding up the founders of the country to score political points. Saying how much they admire them out of one side of their mouth, while preaching treason and sedition out of the other.
What an outrage.
They cared as much about Washington, Jefferson and Jackson, as Osama bin Laden does about the Palistinians.
Holding up the founders of the country to score political points. Saying how much they admire them out of one side of their mouth, while preaching treason and sedition out of the other.
What an outrage.
No, not at all. There was a clear dispute between people as to what the Constitution meant and what it provided. Just because there is a dispute over the meaning does not establish that one side or the other is treasonous. Osamy detests the US and the Constitution. The confederacy simply had a different idea of what the Constitution said.
Might as well give it up jethro. I think you've made your point more than sufficiently well at this point. If they haven't seen it by now it's because they refuse to open their eyes. Arguing it any further is like...like...well, it's like arguing abortion with you. hehe :P
I opened my eyes over the fields of Andersonville Prison in Georgia and grave upon grave. Thirteen thousand Union soldiers dead in two years. The overseer of Andersonville, Capt. Heinrich Wirz was executed for war crimes in the way he let prisoners starve, suffer and die.
In town the city of Andersonville put up a monument to him.
In 1839 John Quincy Adams, in an address before the New York Historical Association, declared: "We may admit the same right has vested in the people of every State of the Union with reference to the general government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part, and under these limitations have the people of each State in the Union a right to secede from the Confederate Union itself."
No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We must, therefore, look beyond the institution of slavery for the fundamental issues which dominated and inspired all classes of the contending sections.
These questions aren't directed at me but I'll answer them.
Jethro, should slavery be legal? Yes or No?
In my opinion, No.
Jethro, should states have the right to legalize slavery? Yes or No?
Yes. Just as a state should have the right to legalize gambling, or prostitution, or anything else that many find offensive. In this day and age I'd be surprised if anyone did legalize it, but according to the way the Constitution was actually set up, each state should have the right to set it's own laws with the exception of the powers given by the Constitution to the federal government. Why should people in Idaho be telling people in Alabama what to do? But that's what the Civil War was really about, federal power (as represented by the Union) against state power (represented by the Confederacy. Yes it's true one of the things they were fighting for was their right to have laws that allowed slavery, but it was the fact that the federal government was changing the rules and overstepping it's bounds that made them want to leave the Union. And the fact that the Union won is a legacy we live with today in terms of a bigger, more powerful federal government.
Jethro, should you have a right to own a slave? Yes or No?
Right may not be the right word. You have the right to desire to own a slave. But whether or not you can depends a lot on whether society supports you or not. And if the majority of society believes the rights of the potential slave are equal to your own, then no. But rights aren't as inherent as we think they are. Rather they are bestowed by society to the degree that they are respected and enforced. And if a majority of society believes it is ok to own slaves, then you could conceivably make a claim amongst that crowd that you have a right to your slave.
Here is a list: http://www.sff.net/people/pitman/civilwar.htm
Knock yourself out.
Here is another list: http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/7002/readlist.htm
James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. 1988.
"A comprehensive history of the United States from about 1845 until Appomattox... If you read only one book on the war, this one should probably be it."
I read that one. So there you are. Don't have to read another. Civil War is well back on my reading list.
I figure I know as much as I need to, and more than most. I've even visited a couple battlefields. Been to Andersonville Prison where the brutality of the Confederacy was visible in all the graves. The neglect of the prisoners was horrifying. They suffered in the heat and died of disease and starvation. I bet there were thousands of graves.
There's your heros, jethro. Starving and brutilzing prisoners. All for the grand southern cause.
PFFFTTTT!
OK Rick that didn't make sense...first you say...
"So if you recommend one, I'll take it with a handful of salt, please".
THEN Jethro sends you a couple of address' to check out and you reply with
"So there you are. Don't have to read another". cause you read what you wanted and not even consider his recommendations
not trying to get on anyones bad side just saw a person seeing ONLY what he wants to see.
If you want to discuss & learn more about the Civil War (which was not very civil)...why wouldn't you take his recommedations? You said reading up on the civil war is low on your list, than why are you in here discussing it with us?
Or do you Rebels still not celebrate the 4th of July?
JESSE VENTURA, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that Thursday, July 4, 2002 shall be observed as:
INDIVISIBLE DAY
We have a choice now too-to celebrate our Independence or Indivisibility!
He's an IDIOT!
I figure I know as much as I need to, and more than most. Typical liberal response. Don't challenge yourself there Rick.
I sure know treason and sedition when I see it.
And I recognize your attempts to rationalize it away. For what purpose? -- To make yourself look free thinking by trashing Abraham Lincoln and propping up traitors?
That doesn't make you a free thinker, jethro.
It makes you a guy with squirrely opinions and too much time on your hands.
I sure know treason and sedition when I see it.
Apparently you don't.
Here is a link to confederate stamps: http://www.jlkstamps.com/webpage/index1.htm
As you can see the confederates held Washington, Jefferson and Jackson in high esteem. Doesn't sound like a people bent on treason, does it?
This guy became a US Senator after being postmaster of the confederacy. http://www.csawardept.com/history/cabinet/reagan/index.html
This area of the Home of the American Civil War website is dedicated to telling the Confederate side of the story. It makes no attempt to be unbiased. It merely attempts to tell the OTHER story.
Interesting obsession you have there, Jethro.
"Here is a link to confederate stamps:
As you can see the confederates held Washington, Jefferson and Jackson in high esteem. Doesn't sound like a people bent on treason, does it?"
Holding up the founders of the country to score political points. Saying how much they admire them out of one side of their mouth, while preaching treason and sedition out of the other.
What an outrage.
They cared as much about Washington, Jefferson and Jackson, as Osama bin Laden does about the Palistinians.
Holding up the founders of the country to score political points. Saying how much they admire them out of one side of their mouth, while preaching treason and sedition out of the other.
What an outrage.
No, not at all. There was a clear dispute between people as to what the Constitution meant and what it provided. Just because there is a dispute over the meaning does not establish that one side or the other is treasonous. Osamy detests the US and the Constitution. The confederacy simply had a different idea of what the Constitution said.
Furthermore, Jefferson's and Jackson's view of the Constitution was much closer to the confederates interpretation than it was to Lincoln's.
At Fort Sumter the nation learned how the Confederacy settles its ideological disputes.
"Furthermore, Jefferson's and Jackson's view of the Constitution was much closer to the confederates interpretation than it was to Lincoln's. "
The earth is churning with the force of those great men spinning in their graves.
No. The feds were on foreign soil and they should ahve been polite and left.
Might as well give it up jethro. I think you've made your point more than sufficiently well at this point. If they haven't seen it by now it's because they refuse to open their eyes. Arguing it any further is like...like...well, it's like arguing abortion with you. hehe :P
Hey, it's too much fun to stop!!!!!!
I opened my eyes over the fields of Andersonville Prison in Georgia and grave upon grave. Thirteen thousand Union soldiers dead in two years. The overseer of Andersonville, Capt. Heinrich Wirz was executed for war crimes in the way he let prisoners starve, suffer and die.
In town the city of Andersonville put up a monument to him.
Monument to a war Criminal.
Probably all you want to know about POWs in the civila war: http://www.civilwarhome.com/prisonsandprisoners.htm
In 1839 John Quincy Adams, in an address before the New York Historical Association, declared: "We may admit the same right has vested in the people of every State of the Union with reference to the general government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part, and under these limitations have the people of each State in the Union a right to secede from the Confederate Union itself."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/vindicationsouth.htm
Jethro, should slavery be legal? Yes or No?
Jethro, should states have the right to legalize slavery? Yes or No?
Jethro, should you have a right to own a slave? Yes or No?
No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
       We must, therefore, look beyond the institution of slavery for the fundamental issues which dominated and inspired all classes of the contending sections.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
whoa. where's the "jt, that's ridiculous" i was expecting?
I gave up. Apparently JT didn't understand what "JT, that's ridiculous!" meant.
I shouldn't expect a real answer.
I don't think there's an opinion piece at Townhall.com that can satisfactorily answer it.
Now, JT, that's ridiculous!
Yes it is. Too bad you don't see it.
Just keep your eyes, ears & mouth covered and everything will be all right.
You must be looking in the mirror, JT.
LOL!
I know you are but what am I?
I can answer that! You're ridiculous. DUH!
No Chat For You!
WHATEVAH!
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/davis.html
These questions aren't directed at me but I'll answer them.
Jethro, should slavery be legal? Yes or No?
In my opinion, No.
Jethro, should states have the right to legalize slavery? Yes or No?
Yes. Just as a state should have the right to legalize gambling, or prostitution, or anything else that many find offensive. In this day and age I'd be surprised if anyone did legalize it, but according to the way the Constitution was actually set up, each state should have the right to set it's own laws with the exception of the powers given by the Constitution to the federal government. Why should people in Idaho be telling people in Alabama what to do? But that's what the Civil War was really about, federal power (as represented by the Union) against state power (represented by the Confederacy. Yes it's true one of the things they were fighting for was their right to have laws that allowed slavery, but it was the fact that the federal government was changing the rules and overstepping it's bounds that made them want to leave the Union. And the fact that the Union won is a legacy we live with today in terms of a bigger, more powerful federal government.
Jethro, should you have a right to own a slave? Yes or No?
Right may not be the right word. You have the right to desire to own a slave. But whether or not you can depends a lot on whether society supports you or not. And if the majority of society believes the rights of the potential slave are equal to your own, then no. But rights aren't as inherent as we think they are. Rather they are bestowed by society to the degree that they are respected and enforced. And if a majority of society believes it is ok to own slaves, then you could conceivably make a claim amongst that crowd that you have a right to your slave.
I did not write the following although you seem to attribute it to me:
So your answer is NO?
JT wrote: So your answer is NO?
I don't understand. Can't you read? My answer was: Just for the record I am not saying that a state, if it had the authority, should do so.
SIGH
::slams head on desk::
I sometimes wonder why Jethro is afraid to just come out with the true him and answer the questions.
I suspect he's afraid his run for Attorney General will fail if the public finds out about the true him.
And fold gets the Stupid Post of the Week award, once again!!!!!
screw you, fold.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pif&GRid=260&PIgrid=260&PIcrid=50668&
Noticably absent on Davis's tombstone is his tenure as president of the Confederacy. Guess they ran out of room.
But they did decide to put "defender of the Constitution."
Lies. And a rank insult to all defenders of the Constitution.
Lies only to people that don't understand the Cosntitution and American history.
The South's gonna do it again!
Right Jethro?
Yeehaw!
::slaps Jethro on the ass::
Cue up dueling banjo's. Yeeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaaawwww
Wow, I've never seen the Hillbilly side of you before.
Hey, I'm not the one who slapped Jethro on the ass :)