Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 407

Thread: Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

  1. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    when i look at the history of my town- i think this: if the union army's concern was freeing the slaves, why didn't they just go after the slave owners(the plantations)? the slave owners only made up about 1% of the population and were located in rural areas outside of city centers. they razed everyone and stole from everyone.
    they left the slaves behind. cotton was the only thing on their barges.
    the town of alexandria didn't fight the union army. when they showed up, they were given quarter. the local attorneys and doctors wrote them pleas to leaves the town without violence. we have these letters still. the locals were given assurance that nothing bad would happen to alexandria. but that was a lie... as the soldiers were getting ready to pillage shreveport... they burned every building in alexandria.. except for the bentley hotel. the 5 star hotel that served as barracks for the union soldiers during their leisurely stay in my town. they bartered with the town, the town would 'surrender' without any fight... they would leave us alone. they said, ok. then, after abusing the services of the town... they burnt it to the ground.
    this happened around about the time of vicksburg and gettysburg? none of the commanders were courtmarshalled? sadly enough, and unfairly?
    you are correct on how some large planations were a self contained universe of sorts completely away from major cities, that apex one percent.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #332
    Regarding Sumter and the 'first shots of the civil war', Dilorenzo says this:

    Daily Bell: Why didn't the South just stand down? There's a theory that if the South had simply declared its independence and walked away that there would not have been much the North could do. Why did the South willingly embark on a shooing war?

    Thomas DiLorenzo: The South did not "embark on a shooting war'" Lincoln did. The states were sovereign, and therefore had a right to secede, as they do today. Article 7 of the Constitution proves this by stating that the Constitution is to be ratified by political conventions of the states. No human being was harmed, let alone killed during the bombing of Fort Sumter. South Carolinians considered the fort to be their property, paid for with their tax dollars, and erected for their protection. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing some 350,000 Southerners. For this he is hailed as "a great statesman" by our court historians.

    Daily Bell: Still, there are those who believe it was a mistake for the South to have initiated hostilities at all.

    Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.

  4. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    when you read my post, you should be weaping, not making excuses. justice was not served. immorality ruled. and innocent people were preyed upon. and to save national pride/identity now, we have to deny that our government is born out of murder.
    torchbearer... could you have voted for president andrew johnson's impeachment in light of how brutal our long civil war was?
    the two senators from my state did, senators sumner and wilson. unlike them, my vote would have gone along with mr. ross's!

  5. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    this is how our current government got its legitmacy.
    the union army ordered to raze and pillage until Lee's surrender. in otherwords, destroy until they submit to this new government.
    kind of the root as to why we aren't free today, the government we have now was formed in 1865. and its wasn't a voluntary union.
    Like the Confederacy for black people. Are all of you guys arguing against Lincoln white?

  6. #335
    was andrew johnson a legitimate potus if the south thinks the last legitimate president was james buchanan???
    reconstruction begs added scholarship, perhaps the senate trial indicates the ultimate legitimacy of the union...

  7. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    this happened around about the time of vicksburg and gettysburg? none of the commanders were courtmarshalled? sadly enough, and unfairly?
    you are correct on how some large planations were a self contained universe of sorts completely away from major cities, that apex one percent.
    this is from wiki:
    The Civil War in Alexandria In the spring of 1863, Alexandria was occupied by Union forces under the command of Admiral David Dixon Porter and General Nathaniel P. Banks. Porter arrived with his gunboats on May 7. Later in the day Banks reached Alexandria with his cavalry, whose members had marched 25 miles to reach the city. According to the historian John D. Winters of Louisiana Tech University, Porter disliked Banks but nevertheless turned over Alexandria to Banks and then departed to rejoin U.S. Grant at the ongoing siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi. Banks posted guards and declared martial law. Porter left behind the gunboat USS Lafayette in Alexandria and posted the USS Pittsburg on the Black River to the northeast.[5]
    In 1864, Admiral Porter, back in the area, and General Banks quarreled over possession of Louisiana cotton. Porter seized three hundred bales of Confederate cotton from various warehouses in Alexandria and stamped it "U.S.N. prize", referring to the United States Navy. Porter sent his sailors into the country to search for unginned cotton. After the crop was located, it was brought to Alexandria to be ginned and baled. The sailors also seized molasses and wool. Winters writes that Porter "took all cotton wherever he found it, cotton belonging to the Confederate government, cotton belonging to the 'rebels,' and cotton belonging to 'loyal' citizens."[6]
    Winters continues: "Banks was furious with Porter when he learned that the admiral was scouring the interior for cotton. Since he had no authority to stop Porter's speculative activities, Banks could only try to beat him to the remaining cotton. Army wagons were sent out in large numbers to collect the cotton. Thousands of bales were brought in by the troops and stored for future shipment. Jealous of the abundant transportation facilities of the army, unprincipled navy men stole army wagons and teams at night, repainted the wagons, and branded the mules with navy initials, and dove deep in the country in search of cotton. . . . "[7]
    The federal army made itself as comfortable as possible during its long stay in Alexandria. Winters writes that "lumber and tools were foraged, and the men busied themselves by building wooden tent floors, benches, and furniture. . . . Alexandria [was enclosed] with a zigzag line of fortifications."[8] While Banks remained in Alexandria in the spring of 1864, Porter was temporarily trapped north of the city because of the low level of the Red River, four feet instead of the needed seven feet to accommodate gunboats.[9]
    Confederate citizens as a whole were most fearful of the Union. According to Winters, "most [Confederates] had never before seen a Yankee soldier [and] expected the worse from the invader. . . . 'Some cried, some cursed, some whined; and some overcome with fear, hid themselves in the woods, leaving everything to the tender mercies of the army.' Negroes were responsible for much of the plunder and pillage. Negro camp followers and officers' servants roamed the plantations and small farms without hindrance, bringing in their booty to camps each afternoon. . . . "[10]
    On May 13, 1864, when the Union decided to abandon Alexandria, the city was set afire despite General Banks' order to the contrary. Winters reports that "burning and plundering" by two Union corps, who set fire to a store on Front Street. Then "a strong wind spread the flames rapidly from one building to the next."[11] Banks later claimed that the fire "broke out in the attic of one of the buildings on the levee inhabited by either soldiers or refugees."[12] Winters reports that "pandemonium reigned; frightened cows bellowed and charged through the flaming streets; squawking chickens with scorched wings tried to fly out of danger. Hundreds of women, children, and old people ran through the streets, trying to carry a few of their belongings to safety. When the heat became unbearable, they dropped their loads and fled to the levee. Thieves ran from house to house and even along the levee taking whatever they wanted from the shocked people. By noon the most congested parts of town were destroyed. An attempt to blow up a church in the path of the fire only succeeded in helping to spread the flames. . . . "[12]
    Alexandria faced the overwhelming task of rebuilding with a year of the war remaining. Prices became exorbitant; butter cost $10 a pound, bacon $5 a pound, flour $3 a pound, and a bushel of meal $10. Many of the helpless lived in the forest without food, shelter, or clothing, subsisting on blackberries. All clothing was homespun, and shoes were mostly made of cloth.[13] While Admiral Porter expressed sympathy for the suffering Alexandria residents, he declared the "burning of Alexandria a fit termination of the unfortunate Red River expedition."[12]
    but our city has a museum with the letters and news reports of the day. it gives a fuller picture of what happened here. should it never be forgotten.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #337
    Travlyr is bringing things back to the 2/5th of a slave that vannished into the aether of social compact theory in 1789 via the act of subjugation...

  10. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by itshappening View Post
    Regarding Sumter and the 'first shots of the civil war', Dilorenzo says this:

    Daily Bell: Why didn't the South just stand down? There's a theory that if the South had simply declared its independence and walked away that there would not have been much the North could do. Why did the South willingly embark on a shooing war?

    Thomas DiLorenzo: The South did not "embark on a shooting war'" Lincoln did. The states were sovereign, and therefore had a right to secede, as they do today. Article 7 of the Constitution proves this by stating that the Constitution is to be ratified by political conventions of the states. No human being was harmed, let alone killed during the bombing of Fort Sumter. South Carolinians considered the fort to be their property, paid for with their tax dollars, and erected for their protection. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing some 350,000 Southerners. For this he is hailed as "a great statesman" by our court historians.

    Daily Bell: Still, there are those who believe it was a mistake for the South to have initiated hostilities at all.

    Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.
    Can anyone verify what DiLorenzo says is true?

    WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

    Capt. G.V. Fox:

    My Dear Sir,

    I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

    I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

    Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.

  11. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Like the Confederacy for black people. Are all of you guys arguing against Lincoln white?
    you now know why you aren't free. and you aren't free to leave. in 1865, the question was answered- you are a slave to government. you can not remove yourself from it.
    so, all your slavery retorts mean $#@!. the irony is... the csa with its misguided immorality would have led to a better future as the question would have been answered that all men can break their chains of bondage.
    Last edited by torchbearer; 12-23-2012 at 01:02 PM.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  12. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    this is from wiki:


    but our city has a museum with the letters and news reports of the day. it gives a fuller picture of what happened here. should it never be forgotten.
    agreed, this is prior to vicksburg and gettsburg, the two northern victories in and of that summer...
    the cotton that had backed the monies of the confederacy, some of it had been sent to europe.
    prominent citizens instead owned the cotton in the warehouses, not the confederate government...

  13. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    agreed, this is prior to vicksburg and gettsburg, the two northern victories in and of that summer...
    the cotton that had backed the monies of the confederacy, some of it had been sent to europe.
    prominent citizens instead owned the cotton in the warehouses, not the confederate government...
    maybe its not stated in the wiki, but alexandria wanted no part of war. its citizens were cowards. they were focused on a economy of providing services to each other and living in peace.
    can you not see why a union army and its government would oppose such people?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  14. #342
    While Admiral Porter expressed sympathy for the suffering Alexandria residents, he declared the "burning of Alexandria a fit termination of the unfortunate Red River expedition."[
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  15. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    you now know why you aren't free. and you aren't free to leave. in 1865, the question was answered- you are a slave to government. you can not remove yourself from it.
    so, all your slavery retorts mean $#@!. the irony is... the csa with its misguided immorality would have led to a better future as the question would have been answered that all men can break there chains of bondage.
    We lost our legitimate government on December 23, 1913 to a coup of international bankers who counterfeit money and debase currency for 100 years of a war economy.

  16. #344
    agreed, they did not ask that army to raze the entire city to the ground nor were they fighting a guerilla war against that army.
    normally, there ought to have been a military courtmarshall in the history books but there isn't. banks at least acted with honor.
    Last edited by Aratus; 12-23-2012 at 12:01 PM. Reason: the thought is that 90% of the confiscated cotton had been in private hands...



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #345
    technically porter exceded orders. if porter quarrels with banks, the d.c "old boy network" won that round?
    Last edited by Aratus; 12-23-2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason: the cotton that backed the banknotes of the confederacy was the cotton to be confiscated...

  19. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Methinks far more salient is the oft-ignored right of the INDIVIDUAL to remain ungoverned from without so long as he adheres to those very few most fundamental principles of proper human relations as embodied in the Canon of Individual Sovereignty, which basically says, "do what thou wilt, but trespass ye not upon thy fellows in the doing."
    The "right" of a state to secede, preserve itself, or something else, is often conflated with individual rights, rendering them very 'alienable'.
    Last edited by robert68; 12-23-2012 at 12:05 PM.

  20. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    We lost our legitimate government on December 23, 1913 to a coup of international bankers who counterfeit money and debase currency for 100 years of a war economy.
    the root goes futher. the original contract disolves in 1861. a new one was sealed by lee in 1865 surrender.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  21. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    technically porter exceded orders. if porter quarrels with banks, the d.c "old boy network" won that round?
    yes, and i take pride that we tell our history true, even if it shows a union guy trying to stop a bad thing from happening.
    banks was noted to being opposed to the burning... but the way buildings were stacked up then, if you wanted to burn down the whole town- all one had to do was start a fire in one building. that was common knowledge. the razing was the intent, and porter got his orders from a higher source than banks.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  22. #349
    indeedy the war dep't = edwin stanton?
    hense the trial in 1868 of our 17th potus?

  23. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    the root goes futher. the original contract disolves in 1861. a new one was sealed by lee in 1865 surrender.
    Five days before Lincoln was killed? Do you have details?

  24. #351
    if poor andy johnson had nothing to do with j. w. booth's conspiracy
    and was almost killed that day on the 14th, if he had a letter perfect
    right to fire his own sec' of war, then is this the total core issue of the
    senate trial? he clearly wanted a new sec' of war. if ole abe lincoln let
    stanton act like a petty tin horn tyrant & A.J wanted the man fired...?

  25. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Five days before Lincoln was killed? Do you have details?
    lincoln had served his role. if you know his history, you know the real movers were his cabinet, filled with all those opponents he supposedly bested at the GOP convention. I see a grand deal were lincoln become the lout and the real power brokers get the government they always wanted. maybe lincoln was just a simple farm boy who wanted to play in a big boy's world.. and became the biggest sucker of them all.
    but its doesn't change what happened.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #353
    lee's surrender is the poor men under his command. the capturing of poor jefferson davis
    after he fled past abbeville south carolina ended the confederacy, even if lee's defeat was
    a major event in that spring. the idea was, had most of jefferson davis's gov't have fled to
    europe, they'd be a gov't in exile. are we being metaphoric about 1865 and 1913 even though
    1929/30 was a major shock to the system but in a different way than 1860? did FDR create
    barack obama's presidency via the new deal and ww2 regs? wilson liked segregation and taxes.

  28. #354
    the election of 1864 put andrew johnson on the ticket in lieu of hannibal hamlin of maine.
    veeps were often political eunuchs and ticket balancers. this begs several deep questions.

  29. #355
    could john wilkes booth have had SOUTHERN and NORTHERN backers who wanted a free hand, a political coup d'etat
    that does away with a sec' of sate, a veep and a potus but not in that order, as they expected the southern gov't
    to keep fleeing? the famous actor had traveled extensively to almost each state of the union and was charismatic...
    Last edited by Aratus; 12-23-2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason: torchbearer has a point. (aratus looks below) general lee knew who he was, and what his role was...

  30. #356
    without the army of virginia, the people of the south had no protection from northern razing. thankfully, the surrender of our last tool of defense was seen as such by most of those in power position. louisiana had no army, only gangs of vigilantes.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  31. #357
    like FDR and the plot smedley butler uncovered, was ole andrew johnson very in the way
    and by merely being very alive, preventing something worse from going down in a bad way?

  32. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by itshappening View Post
    Regarding Sumter and the 'first shots of the civil war', Dilorenzo says this:

    Daily Bell: Why didn't the South just stand down? There's a theory that if the South had simply declared its independence and walked away that there would not have been much the North could do. Why did the South willingly embark on a shooing war?

    Thomas DiLorenzo: The South did not "embark on a shooting war'" Lincoln did. The states were sovereign, and therefore had a right to secede, as they do today. Article 7 of the Constitution proves this by stating that the Constitution is to be ratified by political conventions of the states. No human being was harmed, let alone killed during the bombing of Fort Sumter. South Carolinians considered the fort to be their property, paid for with their tax dollars, and erected for their protection. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing some 350,000 Southerners. For this he is hailed as "a great statesman" by our court historians.

    Daily Bell: Still, there are those who believe it was a mistake for the South to have initiated hostilities at all.

    Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.
    Can anyone verify what DiLorenzo says is true? It looks to me like DiLorenzo is flat out lying. The South fired the first shots. The Confederate Secretary of War admits to starting the war.

    "On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."
    WASHINGTON, May 1st, 1861.

    Capt. G.V. Fox:

    My Dear Sir,

    I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

    I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

    Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.
    Anybody at all? I have not yet been able to find accurate information to support DiLorenzo's claim on naval commander Gustavus Fox's mission where the claim is that Lincoln sent warships to Fort Sumter. Best I can find is the merchant ship (Star of the West) sent by President Buchanan in January to supply Major Anderson with supplies, and the above letter from A. Lincoln to Capt. G.V. Fox indicating sending provisions but not men or arms.

  33. #359
    if an unspeakable & unsaid "worse than FDR" cataclysmic event almost happened in 1933
    and this is very like the "worse than tennessee andy" potential tin horn event in 1865 that
    almost actually happened, we as a union managed to survive abe lincoln an' herbert hoover.

  34. #360
    Travlyr... DiLorenzo is technically out on a scholarly limb given that many in that
    generation took secrets to their graves that we can only guess at and surmise...



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Confederate Constitution
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 09:14 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 06:48 AM
  3. Confederate States of America micronational announcement
    By nate895 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 08-15-2008, 07:32 PM
  4. Southern States - SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS
    By jdmyprez_deo_vindice in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 01:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •