Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Book House Cleaning _fof _fof _fof  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. Shop Now STEMClub17_gno
Customer Discussions > History forum

Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 951-975 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012, 1:16:48 PM PDT
Ku,
I wouldn't suprise me. I wonder if the screenwriter of the John Wayne/Rock Hudson movie the Undefeated had that historical example in mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012, 1:43:41 PM PDT
Olivia,
Thank you for this lead. I spent the last hour and a half on their Facebook page and I see they cover far and wide, not just the Civil War. The Facebook picture of the candles lit at Antietam sends a chill and lends a perspective we don't often get. The only other image I can think of that compares is the WWI picture of the headstones on a European battlefield (is it The Somme? Verdun?). Also the graphic reality photo of Spotsylvania is sobering. We can speak of war as if in the abstract when we have never experienced it and I am as deeply respectful as I can be when I hear veterans say they have experienced such. I can't help but think they feel a bit trapped by those experiences and nobody but those who have something similar can relate at all. That people who are in that organization also look like they have a lot of fun as the Sarasota Conference reveals through pictures. I did post the Antietam picture on Facebook and was going to post the Spotsylvania one but thought twice due to it's graphic nature. It is as close as the uninitiated will get to the reality. One can understand the impact M. Brady's pictures had when he posted them publicly in NYC. I am sure most here know of his books but William Frassanito has several out including one on Antietam

Antietam: The Photgraphic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day

Thanks again, we'll all benefit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012, 1:48:24 PM PDT
MPH: The South and its culture/economy was condescended to by many Northerners.

BPL: Gee, I wonder why?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You certainly have an axe to grind don't you? A little more tact/courtesy and a little less condescension would go a long way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012, 1:53:48 PM PDT
S. Kessler: "Right about what? The point is that they didn't secede. And the Confederate states did. So the two things are not comparable."

He didn't say they did; he was just using the 'almost" to reinforce a point. You were saying that there was no such happening or at least it came off that way. There was such a flurry and speculation of it. That's all he was saying.

Posted on Jun 12, 2012, 9:15:06 PM PDT
jpl says:
Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?

jpl: Who cares? How do you face day-to-day life?

Posted on Jun 12, 2012, 9:18:14 PM PDT
jpl says:
Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?

Presidents and the Congress do unconstitutional things all the time. Nobody cares.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 3:59:16 AM PDT
RMS: We don't own GITMO, we have a lease on it, we are still paying the Castro government lease payments.

BPL: My mistake. But our having it doesn't constitute an act of war against Cuba.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 4:00:26 AM PDT
RMS: Slavery died peacefully everywhere else outside of Islamic states

BPL: No, it did not. In Haiti it took a violent revolution. In Africa and Asia it was eliminated by force of British guns. And with the retreat from Christianity, it is coming back in a big way in many areas, including trafficking of sex slaves in the industrialized north.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 4:00:45 AM PDT
RMS: So you're a poli sci major, that explains a lot.

BPL: Was a poly sci major. My degree is in physics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 4:01:09 AM PDT
RMS: BPL, A shot across the bow was the international signal to heave to (stop in place) or be fired into. Running away doesn't constitute heaving to.

BPL: Nor does it constitute a threat. The south fired first. Deal with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 4:08:33 AM PDT
rk: 'Slavery' was one particular component; 'states' rights' was the general issue.

BPL: But wouldn't have been an issue if not for slavery.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/CivilWar.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 4:09:48 AM PDT
RMS: It happened that way EVERYWHERE else.

BPL: That is not true, so kindly stop repeating it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 4:11:11 AM PDT
MPH: You certainly have an axe to grind don't you? A little more tact/courtesy and a little less condescension would go a long way.

BPL: The heck with you, pal. I have no tolerance for slavery. If you want to be polite to neo-Confederates, who in my book are about the same, ethically, as neo-Nazis, go for it.

Posted on Jun 13, 2012, 5:57:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012, 6:03:02 AM PDT
BPL:

Michael and I have been on these Civil War threads for a long time, back to when they still had an entire discussion forum dedicated to the Civil War alone. My impression is that nobody on these boards has a tolerence for slavery. I have run across some kooks on Amazon, maybe even a neo-Nazi or two. But I've never run across anybody, ever, who is pro-slavery and certainly nobody on this thread is comparable to a Neo-Nazi.

Understanding why people throughout history had slaves is not the same as condoning or even tolerating slavery.

Just sayin'.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 9:51:29 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"If the Civil War had gone the other way - and it very well could have done"

ONLY in bad alternative-history fiction.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 9:57:35 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?

jpl: Who cares? How do you face day-to-day life?"

Hey, feel free to go back to your "day-to-day life" and exit stage left.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 11:59:18 AM PDT
BPL,
Haiti was a slave revolt that was successful. One of a very few in history. It had nothing to do with the end of slavery. The French couldn't reconquer the island. In Africa, the slave trade was ended by the British, slavery wasn't. Even after the slave trade was abolished slavery was still legal in the British Empire, Wilberforce was wise enough to engineer a slow death for the practice. Slavery still exists in some parts of Africa and is making a big comeback as Islam expands. White slavery is another topic altogether, it is illegal pretty much everywhere in the Western World and while difficult to stamp out, slavers are prosecuted every day. It's certainly not an accepted part of society.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 12:02:21 PM PDT
BPL,
As a order to stop. It wasn't an agressive attack. It was a normal communication in those days, there weren't radios or universal signal flags like there are today. Outside of voice range a shot across the bow was a standard universal signal to heave to for boarding and inspection. Most ships didn't need it, they would heave to and signal for a pilot and customs inspection before entering port.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 1:11:02 PM PDT
Michael:

I didn't know about Frassanito's books. I checked this Antietam one out and saw that it got excellent reviews.
I really appreciate the kind of attention to detail that he seems to give the photos. The more "reality" that can be sussed out, the better we'll be able to understand what went on.

I think I'll check to see what else he's written. At any rate I've put this Antietam one on my wish list already. Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 2:08:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012, 2:34:24 PM PDT
You are welcome. I didn't mention it here Olivia but Frassinito did a similar kind of work on Gettysburg. I've never come across anybody else who amassed as many of these "graphic"" types of photos in one compendium as he. I mean, it is as if you are walking onto the battlefields right after the carnage. Today we only see the manicured grass fields with statues to honor and remember by. Of course that is good enough for our purposes in acknowledging the struggle that allows what we have in the present; however, these pictures show explicitly why we have dedicated these grounds (reminds me of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address) in such number and acreage. To think of a battle scenario where tens of thousands of men engaged in such massive yet orchestrated bloodshed is incomprehensible (at least for me). I can't fathom such descriptions of the combat that took place at "Little Round Top" at Gettysburg, Burnside's men storming "Maryes Heights" at Fredericksburg, "the Hornets Nest at Shiloh", "the Cornfield" at Antietam, or "Bloody Angle" at Spotsylvania. Descriptions are absolutely chilling and lends a renewed appreciation to what we should remember when acknowledging our past and those whose lot in life was to give us what we have presently. I think that this respect for the struggles our armed forces have engaged in transcends liberal, conservative, and other political inclinations. To think how U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee engaged in those six horrific weeks during the Wilderness Campaign of 1864 with almost a 100,000 casualties between them (that's the population of a good sized town) seems unfathomable. The only cataclysm that surpasses it is WWI with the advent of machine weaponry and then Russia's losses in WWII.

Posted on Jun 13, 2012, 2:25:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012, 4:25:03 PM PDT
Thinking of the aftermath of such battles reminds me of Lee's poignant statement surveying Marye's Heights after the battle of Fredericksburg

"It is well that war is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it."

On the various forms of this quote:
http://cwmemory.com/2008/09/08/it-is-well-that-war-is-so-terrible/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 5:41:58 PM PDT
DonM says:
The south did not secede. They had no constitutional power to do so.

Check Texas v. White.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 5:49:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012, 5:53:06 PM PDT
texas, california, utah, nevada, new MEXICO, arizona, colorado, FLORIDA, and all the rest

take it

it's all burned out now anyway and the anglo population useless for anything but couch potatoing

so really Lincoln was fighting for SPanish territory

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 6:25:50 PM PDT
According to Wikipedia in citing Chief Justice Chase, Texas was still in the union regardless of whether they had joined the Confederacy or not. It gives the impression that the Confederacy was never recognized to begin with and that the southern states were staging a rebellion (as states still in the Union).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012, 11:06:44 PM PDT
Michael,
The Union's treatment of the Confederacy was somewhat confused. On some issues the Union behaved like the Confederacy was in rebellion, and in others, like declaring a blockade of Confederate ports and the treatment of prisoners the Union behaved like the Confederacy was at war with the Union.
[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
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  108
Total posts:  2033
Initial post:  May 10, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 20, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers