Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Snippets out of context, are notoriously difficult to interpret. What is hard to understand, is just what it is that the one using snippet is trying to prove.
In context, it means that someone in the executive office was fully aware of the box southern politico' had put themselves in.
What better words to use than those of the participants.
Whose words are more relevant?-
The Yankee of 2007?...or one straight from 1861?
Yet you and your cut n paste compatriots seem unwilling to accept the words of the CS govt & politicians... from Ft Pillow to slavery when their words don't correspond w/ your preconceived notions you ignore them.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
There is also a bit more to interpreting old quotes, above and beyond any irritation I might feel at Battalion's habit of using them for evasions, IMHO. If you don't have a good understanding of the background and context of the original, you probably won't understand it the way people in that day and time would.
For example, take Jesus' advice in the Sermon on the Mount: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. " This is usually seen as straight-forward, pacifist, non-violent statement.
But was it? Did Jesus have more than one thing in mind here? Maybe. One day I came across a sermon on the meaning by a Protestant minister who had long studied that period.
It seems that in that day and time, you would have to envision the act itself here. The minister saw this as the blow of a Roman master to a servant or slave: righthanded, a backhand blow to the face. A servant who turned the other cheek here would be honoring the law, showing no resistance to lawful authority. At the same time, by turning the other cheek, he dared the master to strike him again, because the next blow would be with the palm of the right hand, the blow of an equal to an equal in Roman society. It would occur to almost no one today, but the minister thought it was at least an idea that might spring to the mind of rebellious Hebrews under Roman occupation. I have to say it never occurred to me until I saw this.
Lincoln was writing to Fox at a difficult time. It looks like Lincoln was trying to ease a man over a bad spot, the failure of the expedition to Charleston. Battalion seems to believe there is something more than this there, since he tries to imply it proves some nefarious purpose, but he won't say a word about what he sees. I think it likely whatever Battalion thinks he sees is only inside him, his insistence that the people of the past think and act inside the lines he has drawn for them. They drew their own outlines; they shaped their own purposes. Since Battalion will not describe what he envisions, we must end up ignoring all such posts. They become merely static in the discussions by Battalion's whim.
In your posts #71 & #76, you give the impression that the federal government ordered the US National Guard to fire on Kent State Students during the disturbances there and you have the impression that the federal government is going to order, or can order, the USMC into major US cities.
By golly UB, you're on the friggin' ball. I know'd the US Government didn't order them Guardsmen to shoot into that crowd. I was just wonder'n if any of younz was payin' attention. Cudos to you sir. The Kent State autrocity goes to the Govenor of Ohio, not the President in Washington.
I'm worried about going down this track any further. I think old johan_steele is gonna say this ain't about the American Civil War anymore. I kinda reckon it is, but then I place wider parameters on that matter than most forum moderators and administrators.
What is this fourm's policy on more modern day topics? Are we limited to the Great Unpleasantness of the 1850's and 1860's or are we at liberty to discuss more current trends in politics?
As far as my comments about the USMC in San Deigo and San Antonio, I said that cause a lot of folks would like to see the President send in the military to patrol our borders and run 12-20 million Illegal Aliens out. I ain't one of 'em. I know what its like to have Uncle Sam out to get you, or at least my Great Grandpa know'd and I don't want to see it happen again. We can sort our differences out without support from West Point, thank you very kindly. I ain't sayin' I'm for Amnesty. Far From IT! I just don't want to see the USMC runnin rampant in any American city, ever again!
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 05-24-2007 at 11:33 AM.
".....the USMC running rampant in any American city, ever again." ?????
Look here Opn, don't play coy with me. The Military of the United States has a long history of conducting operations right here in the good old USA and you know it.
Why do you think we got the Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
I bet you didn't know, our illustrious leader and his Rubber Stamp Congress pushed through modifications virtually eliminating any limits to the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement after 9/11/02.
Ever heard of USNORTHCOM, Pard?
I didn't think so.
USNORTHCOM is responsible for U.S. military operations in the continental United States. It is composed of several standing Joint Task Forces and has approximately 1,200 uniformed and civilian members. Forces from all branches of the U.S. military may be assigned to the Command as needed to complete its mission.
Don't tell me they can't run rampant in American cities. I know for a fact, they have and probably will again. Back in the day, they had a little game they called, "Razing the Town Square".
It started out in the morning when a Cap'n and 25 or 30 troopers would ride into town real fast in a colum of twos with their flag flyin' and their bugle blaring. They'd dismount and storm into the Courthouse and proceed to make themselves at home.
Before long, one of 'em would be ringin' the church bell and callin' all the people to gather round. The Cap'n would make some proclomations about Abe Lincoln and the Glorious Union and then order the women folk to get busy makin' breakfast. Then he'd go into consultation with the Union League and before you know'd it, he'd have himself a list of local Democracts, Slave holders and Southern Sympathizers.
Around noon, the Colonel would come ridin' in with 50 or 75 more troopers and they'd proceed to seekin' out those names on the list.
They'd kick down doors and knock down walls and confiscate contraband. They'd collect up just about anything they wanted; guns, ammunition, horses, medical supplies and liquor. If you resisted, they'd drag your sorry arse up to the corral and force you to sit in horse**** while they killed or carted off all your livestock.
About dark, somebody would start a fire and before you know'd it a couple of them Southern houses and a half dozen barns would be up in smoke.
Come mornin' two or three of them Southern boys from the list would be hangin' from a big oak tree and the rest of the townsfolk would know what "Razing the Town Square" was all about.
Don't tell me they can't run rampant in American cities. I know for a fact, they can and I don't want no more of it.
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 05-24-2007 at 03:00 PM.
Look here Opn, don't play coy with me. The Military of the United States has a long history of conducting operations right here in the good old USA and you know it.
Why do you think we got the Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
...
That may all be so -- but if the only examples you can come up with relate to an armed insurrection by a minority of the country, a four year long bloody war forced on the nation by the insurrectionists, and the short (11 years, max, for any of the states that seceded, very short by the standards of world history) period of Reconstruction, you really can't expect the rest of the nation to think the threat you are talking about today is very serious, 130 years later.
One of the reasons the national government exists is to control exactly the sort of violent disagreement that did occur in the Civil War. Once it starts, military force and fighting is only to be expected -- and in ALL cases involving the Civil War, the US use of force was preceded by the use of armed force by the seceding states. Blaming the Federal government for that is like blaming the guy who throws the second punch in a bar fight for starting things off: it just ain't so.
If you want to say there were cases where vile things happened, you'll find almost everyone will agree with you. If you want to show examples of abuse by Federal troops, I can find them as well and will not argue about it. But if you want to give the South a free pass for their very similar (and sometimes more abusive) actions, then you are being unfair and too partisan. Murder is murder, no matter what color the uniform, no matter whether it is "wild-eyed Southern boys" or Federal troops -- and the odds of the men in uniform being eventually punished by their own goverbnment for it are much better than they are for individual bushwackers and bands of partisan guerrillas. Rape and theft and other crimes still remain the same, although the necessities of war caused some of the foraging and plunder by both sides. But excusing one side while blaming the other simply will not wash.
Let's talk about Columbia, South Carolina then. April, 1865. For all intents and purposes, the war was over. Sherman and his ..... troopers, burned 2/3's of the city to the ground. Columbia was certainly not Atlanta. It wasn't a railroad or manufactoring center. It wasn't even a big military staging base. Vengence! Retribution. There's no other reason. If that ain't "runnin' rampant", if that any "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians", I don't know what is.
But if you want to give the South a free pass ....
I ain't said I was trying to "give the South a free pass". What the heck do you mean by that anyway?
Please don't misunderstand my intent. I am trying to maintain a position against a strong centralized national government. I'm not advocating for slavery. I'm not advocating for seccession. I'm not for Jeff Davis. I am against Abe Lincoln and the Radical Black Republicans.
At least that's the position I'm trying to espouse on this fourm.
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 05-24-2007 at 03:50 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
War crimes against ........ civilians 
Linear Mode
