Customer Discussions > History forum

Civil War 150th Anniversary


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 996 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2011 7:27:35 PM PDT
Dennis Rizzo says:
Yes - we had almost as many this past weekend at the 150th commemoration reenactment.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 8:40:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 10, 2014 8:43:21 AM PDT
Pat Answer says:
Dennis Rizzo,
Greetings.

Must have been broiling out there. (!)
(I caught some of the C-SPAN coverage like a wimp...)

Posted on Jul 26, 2011 12:53:52 PM PDT
I'm giving a luncheon talk in Easton, Maryland this Thursday on "The Crisis: Maryland In 1861." It's great that the interest level is high - a sellout for the restaurant. Maryland In The Civil War

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 5:55:20 PM PDT
Dennis Rizzo says:
We planned to broil venison for dinner and soom realized all we had to do was lay it on top of the ten for an hour or so and, "voila" ---

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 7:47:37 AM PDT
Pat Answer says:
LOL. Like the Mongols' "oven" under the saddle (if those stories are true)...

I had meant to ask you before: what unit?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 8:14:01 AM PDT
Dennis Rizzo says:
7th NJ - 2d USV - Union

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 8:14:47 AM PDT
Dennis Rizzo says:
Would you be interested in a quick casual review of a new novel set in CW?

Posted on Aug 10, 2011 8:51:22 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 10, 2014 8:43:29 AM PDT]

Posted on Aug 10, 2011 5:55:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 10, 2011 5:55:45 PM PDT
It will be a long war after all. But the resupply to Washington has been assured, and the Maryland legislature met without serious problems. What happens if Lee invades - will Marylanders rise in support of the South? Maryland In The Civil War

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2011 6:24:47 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Are you referring to the "War of Yankee Aggression"?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2011 7:56:06 PM PDT
How do you figure that? The South started the war, boycotted the conference that tried to avert war, and fired their guns as peace commissioners were meeting with the President. To deny responsibility for this is not credible, although it is cutesy.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2011 9:36:26 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
You, sir, are obviously not familiar with Southerners. They wear T-shirts which proclaim that they are "American by birth: Southern by the Grace of God."

By the way, I'm not a Southerner myself. I live in Montana.

Posted on Aug 27, 2011 9:38:51 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 10, 2014 8:43:35 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2011 5:09:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 27, 2011 5:09:48 PM PDT
2 cents says:
I like how Grant is regularly described as a failure. One of things mentioned is his failure at farming. To me that's like calling a person that gets a terrible disease a failure. Farming, after all, was pretty easy work back in the day and success was a straight forward matter of hard work. Except for weather sometimes repeatedly wiping out your crops. And there were other factors.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2011 7:06:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 27, 2011 7:06:45 PM PDT
That rather reminds me of Eisenhower. It was fashionable amongst the media to imply what a dummy he was. Then, after he left office, there was a special on an anniversary of the Normandy invasions, featuring Eisenhower. He gave a superb analysis, placing the units in exact position in his mind. Anyone who wonders about Grant should read his memoirs - the finest strategic record of the Civil War I've read. And he did it while dying of throat cancer. Quite a General.
Maryland In The Civil War

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2011 1:38:40 PM PDT
Pat Answer says:
2 cents,

"To me that's like calling a person who gets a terrible disease a failure."
Great point! Keeping a real sense of historical context is sometimes difficult for us flip-a-switch moderns.

Posted on Aug 30, 2011 11:49:27 AM PDT
jtshiel says:
I love history
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ▄ ▌ ▐ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▌
─ ─ ─ ▄ ▄ █ █ ▌ █ ░ ♥ ░ ░ DELIVERY OF HUGS ░ ♥░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░▐
▄ ▄ ▄ ▌ ▐ █ █ ▌ █ ░ ░ ░ FOR EVERYONE! ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░▐
█ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▌ █ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▌
▀ (@) ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ (@)(@) ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ (@) ▀ ▘ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Posted on Sep 6, 2011 7:18:12 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 10, 2014 8:43:42 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 6, 2011 8:17:02 AM PDT
Excellent post, Pat. Those of us from the East tend to focus overly on the campaigns here, I think. I've just finished reading McPherson on the campaign you mention. The entire strategy from both sides, political as well as military, regarding the border states, is a book that perhaps remains to be written. My own Maryland In The Civil War covers the subject from the standpoint of Maryland.

Posted on Oct 21, 2011 9:31:12 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 10, 2014 8:43:48 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2011 2:36:56 PM PDT
Not that many Senators have served on active duty, as Senators or not. Henry Cabot Lodge did so in World War II. We need more such examples! Maryland In The Civil War

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2011 6:33:35 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 25, 2011 8:04:26 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2011 9:05:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2011 9:54:33 PM PDT
I miss W says:
John M. Lane says: Are you referring to the "War of Yankee Aggression"?

William S. Shepard says: How do you figure that?

ImW: South Carolina seceded, they considered Fort Sumter to be their property. When the North refused to evacuate the fortress but instead tried to reinforce it, that was an act of aggression against the CSA.

WSS: The South started the war, boycotted the conference that tried to avert war, and fired their guns as peace commissioners were meeting with the President.

ImW: The USA refused to leave South Carolina property, which left the Secessionists with no option but to take the fort.

WSS: To deny responsibility for this is not credible, although it is cutesy.

ImW: If you accept that individual states had the right to secede from the union, the USA had no legal right to occupy SC territory. To have allowed a foreign power to keep Fort Sumter would have been a serious blow to their sovereignty.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 2:17:03 PM PDT
Well, that's an interesting theory. But there were no such entities as states before the federal union existed. The popular notion rhat there were states' rights which were somehow retained despite the formation of the Union is not very credible (the Tenth Amendment is of course a different thing entirely). There were no states at that point. There were thirteen colonies, which united to form a federal union... which was THEN comprised of states. In order to secede and be legally consistent in 1860-61, they would have had to accede to their previous position of colonies - which of course would have had no right to federal property. McPherson, "Battle Cry of the Republic," is probably the best source on this, as in many aspects of the late rebellion. The bravery of fighting men on both sides is to be honored, and that is what all should remember now. Whether or not as a political matter Lincoln should have acceded to the many who thought the South should just be allowed to go is of course another matter.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 3:00:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2011 3:08:13 PM PDT
I miss W says:
William S. Shepard says: Well, that's an interesting theory. But there were no such entities as states before the federal union existed.

ImW: That seems to be a matter of semantics. Given that the definition of a state is "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government", 13 states ratifying the Constitution was the same as 13 nations doing so.

Therefore it was independent nations coming together in a union much like the EU. As such, when they seceded they reverted to their former independent and sovereign status.

WSS: The popular notion rhat there were states' rights which were somehow retained despite the formation of the Union is not very credible (the Tenth Amendment is of course a different thing entirely).

ImW: The US Supreme Court agrees with you, but the argument still rages. Secessionists argued that the US Constitution was a contract between states, so when the North refused to return runaway slaves as they were legally obligated to do, they breached the contract. Therefore the Southern states were free to go on their merry way.

Personally, I think they had a perfect right to secede. And the North had a right to conquer them. Which would have resulted in a War of Yankee Aggression.

WSS: There were no states at that point. There were thirteen colonies, which united to form a federal union... which was THEN comprised of states.

ImW: It wasn't colonies that ratified the Constitution, it was states:

>>Article VII of the proposed Constitution provided for its ratification by three quarters of specially called state ratifying conventions. Once we get the ratification of a minimum of nine popularly elected state conventions, then this proposed Constitution will be "this Constitution" between the nine or more that signed.<<

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/stages.html

[edit]>>The Continental Congress served as a national government through the war that raised an army to fight the British and named George Washington its commander, made treaties, declared independence, and instructed the colonies to write constitutions and become states.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies

So I think you're mistaken.

WSS: In order to secede and be legally consistent in 1860-61, they would have had to accede to their previous position of colonies - which of course would have had no right to federal property.

ImW: No, they would have reverted to being independent states with the right to seize US property inside their borders.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  63
Total posts:  996
Initial post:  Mar 2, 2011
Latest post:  1 day ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions