Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:15 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Would You Take Up Arms Against America If Your State Tried To Secede? Back to Topics
gocatgo

Champion Author
South Carolina

Posts:19,067
Points:3,142,860
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 12:23:57 PM

Would you take up arms against America if your state tried to secede?

My answer is NO. With so much talk by unhappy conservatives for secession, I think the question is valid. As an armed Vietnam war vet I would have no problem shooting a traitor. I personally believe the secession talk is coming from cry babies that cannot deal with the loss of the last election.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2012 2:51:21 PM

Cymk said: "Most of the northerners didnt want free slaves either, it was lamost 2 years soince the beginning of the civil war in April 1861, until the ratification of the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863. Lincoln had to fight hard to get it passed, but becasue it was based on his war powers; the empancipation "did not free any slaves in the border states nor did it abolish slavery."

--Don't know about that. It seems to me that since the North abolished slavery, that they mus have found it a foul institution. And I thought emancipation was by executive order of President Lincoln? I'll have to look that one up. If you say it was his "war powers", then that would suggest an XO. It didn't free any slaves, but it did turn Britain away from the Confederacy, because that obviously made the war about slavery, that they had abolished, in, what? 1803 or so? But while the war was ostensibly about state's rights, the evil institution of slavery was the heart of the matter, not property rights, not state's rights at it's heart. For another perspective, you might want to read the chapter on this in the book "Lies my Teacher Taught Me" (it's either "Told Me" or "Taught Me", forget which) It's a good book that debunks some of the myths that have crept into our basic American History school textbooks.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,608
Points:1,862,165
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2012 2:18:15 PM

gocatgo, >>As for slavery, it was a black eye on a nearly perfect document we call our Constitution. Things change, thank God.<<
***
How true. In the case of slavery, it changed as a result of an Amendment. Unfortunately, many people want to change (and have changed) what the Federal Government is permitted to do without going through the Amendment process. We currently stand at the threshold of a major calamity as a result of these irresponsible and unauthorized changes.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,067
Points:3,142,860
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2012 1:08:16 PM

Pan, a casualty or death by accident still counts. There are many such casualties on the Vietnam Memorial Wall all part of that 58,178 count but you know that.

As for slavery, it was a black eye on a nearly perfect document we call our Constitution. Things change, thank God.

Merry Christmas boys & girls.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,608
Points:1,862,165
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 22, 2012 2:12:48 PM

cymk, >>The just becasue there was nothing specifically outlawing slavery, does not mean there was a law specifically legalizing it either.<<
***
As it was NOT mentioned in the US Constitution, it was left up to the individual states. The first state that abolished slavery was (The Republic of) Vermont 1777, Massachusetts (1782) and then New Hampshire 1783.

It would be extremely helpful if some posters (mostly from the left) would read and understand what is in the US Constitution. An excellent example is:

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
---
This was written in 1789 so a person should have by now known, anything NOT ENUMERATED (listed) in the Constitution is left up to the states or the people.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 22, 2012 12:50:55 PM

cymk - "The just becasue there was nothing specifically outlawing slavery, does not mean there was a law specifically legalizing it either."

Slavery existed in all the colonies before the Constitution and the constitution and laws did not forbid it or set the slaves free because of the harm it would do to both the slaves and their owners. And it was discussed how to end slavery without harm to either of them. Many of the descendants of former slaves still suffer from the harm done to them in the manner in which they were freed.

You do not understand slavery and why it existed. Slavery came into being because there was no such thing as "Prisoner of War Camps" or "Prisoners of War". What do you think happened to prisoners?

What do you think happened to prisoners who would not accept slavery or could not be used as slaves. Where slavery was outlawed there was nothing but the alternative to being a slave. What do you think that alternative was?

Is it comforting to be ignorant of the alternative? Is it comforting to be ignorant of just setting slaves free with no preparation of either slave or owner? Ignorance must be bliss!
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:313,860
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 2:27:09 PM

map>>>Simply not so. Slavery was an accepted and lawful practice in most, if not all, the Colonies. Since there was no Federal law against it and was NOT enumerated in Article I, Section 8 it was lawful.<<<

The just becasue there was nothing specifically outlawing slavery, does not mean there was a law specifically legalizing it either.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,473
Points:830,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 2:20:43 PM

Maryland secede?! ROFL! We ARE the Federal Government to a large extent and much of our income derives from direct and indirect payments from the Feds.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,608
Points:1,862,165
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 2:09:02 PM

cymk, >>We also had no consitutional authority to enlsave people in the first place. <<
***
Simply not so. Slavery was an accepted and lawful practice in most, if not all, the Colonies. Since there was no Federal law against it and was NOT enumerated in Article I, Section 8 it was lawful.

It wasn't until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment that slavery was abolished. It also took another amendment (14th) to allow the children of slave to become citizens.
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:313,860
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 12:31:43 PM

AC, it was more states rights than slavery. For example if a Souther slave owner moved to another state, his slaves should still be his property (per what the southern states believed). Since not all states believed in slaverey as an institution, southerner's were essentially told, "no your proerty rights cease to exist once you cross the border."

Most of the northerners didnt want free slaves either, it was lamost 2 years soince the beginning of the civil war in April 1861, until the ratification of the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863. Lincoln had to fight hard to get it passed, but becasue it was based on his war powers; the empancipation "did not free any slaves in the border states nor did it abolish slavery."

It took the 13th amendment to do that, which was finally ratified in Decmber of 1865 (then president Johnson declared an end to the war in May of the same year).

So you could say that Lincoln's assassination forced the issue of the 13th amemndment.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,788
Points:2,210,815
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 12:19:32 PM

"We also had no consitutional authority to enlsave people in the first place."

BINGO!
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 12:13:20 PM



gocatgo, "Pan, "estimated casualties none", yet your source says "one union artillerist killed and 3 wounded". So much for "casualties none". You must have thought I would not read your source or maybe you didn't read your own source. Ft Sumter was not taken without a fight or casualties"

Read it again. There were no casualties from the action; the casualties resulted after the fact in an accident with a cannon that burst while firing a salute.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 12:03:29 PM

Slavery was an institution that was living on borrowed time, even in 1860. It was wrong, and it really and truly didn't make economic sense. It's too bad that it took a war to figure it all out. It's too bad that we didn't have a bloodless emancipation, like they did in Great Britain.

While the war was ostensibly about "states rights", the reason the 13 Southern states left the Union was over slavery. Slavery was the root issue.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,067
Points:3,142,860
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 11:58:09 AM

Pan, "estimated casualties none", yet your source says "one union artillerist killed and 3 wounded". So much for "casualties none". You must have thought I would not read your source or maybe you didn't read your own source. Ft Sumter was not taken without a fight or casualties.

Black, you should be careful about accepting a source from a poster that is unsure about his loyalty to America. And again Bull Run was not the first battle of the Civil War. I hope that is starting to sink in by now.

Pan, btw how are you coming along on your excuses on which parts of the Constitution that are being ignored. That is your excuse for your pro secession stance I believe.

God Bless America.

Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:313,860
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 11:10:08 AM

***********NEWS FLASH***********

The civil war was not about freeing the slaves, it was about states rights.

***********NEWS FLASH***********

Yes, Lincoln did fight to free the slaves, but it was a strategical/political move to weaken the South in a war that was dragging on.

>>>>>...Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free the slaves.<<<<

We also had no consitutional authority to enlsave people in the first place.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 10:48:22 AM

Thanks, Panama19.

It was also my impression the Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard (CS) and Maj. Robert Anderson (US) were friends. Beauregard may have also been one of Anderson's teachers at West Point.

Most Southerners did not want secession but circumstances forced them into it. Lincoln wanted to find an excuse to free the slaves, but Southerns could not afford to free them and Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free the slaves.

Slaves in the South were better off than workers in the slums of the North. So what Lincoln did was to actually free them from their homes, food, clothing, and employment. I think a lot of their descendants haven't recovered from that abuse today.

We need to find ways to get all financially strapped people regardless of race to find employment to improve their incomes with jobs that are worth higher pay.

The first step in this improvement is to get the economy working like it should. Obama has proved he is unable or unwilling to do it. So we need other people to work on it in spite of him.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 11:13:24 PM


Fort Sumter

"Estimated Casualties: None"

Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 6:59:37 PM

gocatgo - "Black, your Civil War lecturing days are over."

You wish. I haven't found the source of what I related, but even if I erred regarding Fort Sumter, I have given a very valid reference that derails your ideas about secession and that is the 4th chapter of Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War by G. F. R. Henderson first published in 1899 in England. The entire book should be available in most libraries and you may be able to find an ebook version. I have an digital version as a Word 2003 document. I am willing to upload it somewhere and give you a link when I find a site to upload it to.

Even if some of my information regarding Fort Sumter seems dubious, take a look at the sources you trust. Look at the casualties. How many were there on both sides. Pretty small number for reducing a fort that was illegally occupied. So more research is justified.

Unfortunately, my reference only mentions Fort Sumter in passing; it does not give much information about that event. But it is one of the best references for those areas it does cover. So I'm not giving up my lecturing especially when you are much further off in talking about secession.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 12/16/2012 7:03:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,006
Points:323,105
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 6:40:08 PM

If Bush had a mandate then Obama has a bigger mandate.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,788
Points:2,210,815
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 6:34:55 PM

"The margin of victory of Obama does not represent any sort of mandate or "sweeping mandate"."

AC, I never said it did. What I did was compare Bush to Obama. Bush, after winning 2004 with about the same margin as Obama, declared he had a mandate. Electorally, Obama had a bigger wipeout of Romney than Bush had of Kerry.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:656
Points:78,050
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 6:22:24 PM

So you are a Torry, then? You would refuse to take up arms against a government that had overrun its authority and had become despotic? You would kill your good countrymen for an abusive and tyrannical government? This country we call "America" is not the country that you put your life on the line for. If push comes to shove, the current regime will have no problem casting you aside. It is every citizen's duty to read and understand the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution. We are ruled no longer by a Constitutional government; we are ruled by an Administrative government that does not answer to The People.

[Edited by: RAB2010 at 12/16/2012 6:23:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,608
Points:1,862,165
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 3:46:46 PM

AC-302, >> It strikes me as ambivalence on the part of the electorate.<<
***
Could be but it may be voters, especially Republicans were turned off by Romney's actions against Ron Paul at the RNC Convention and/or the Republicans offered no real plan to turn things around in this country.

Here is one analysis.

From the link, "This is the myth of democracy, representative governance, and manufactured dissent. It does not represent the vast majority of the people who are affected by the decisions these governments or movements then make with their self-proclaimed mandates. While numbers are still coming in, USA Today has reported that voter turnout in the 2012 US Elections most likely will fall short of 2008 elections. The article titled, “This year’s voter turnout may fall short of 2008,” quoted Michael McDonald of the George Mason University who stated:

“It doesn’t look like we had a 2008-level turnout. I’m certain about that. There was some waning of interest in voting. I don’t see this election as some kind of wholesale collapse of turnout, either.”

While polling experts claim the slump in voting is a result of “waning interest,” it really isn’t explained as to why interest in determining one’s own destiny would ever wane. The most likely answer is that many people feel that voting accomplishes nothing. It is done after a grueling, repetitive campaign of lofty, vague promises that most mature adults know will never be kept, by special interests who have organized against them, and are merely telling us all what we want to hear as they proceed to exploit us and plunder our nation."

[Edited by: MahopacJack at 12/16/2012 3:49:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 1:29:22 PM

101Speedster said: " Either way it is not a mandate especially with the House won by the Republicans."

--Wholeheartedly agree. However, the actions I see from Obama and the Democrats speak louder than the lip service we heard from Obama about "coming together" at his inauguration. Basically, Obama wants the Republicans to just roll over and play dead, and vote his way on everything. That is "reconciliation" to Obama, and I think the Reps would be wrong to cave in. The Democrats have already set the fiscal cliff up as the Republicans' fault. They may as well allow the fiscal cliff to occur, they're already going to take the blame for it, rightly or wrongly (the latter to my thinking). Eventually Obama has to take some responsibility, which he appears to be loathe to do.

But I agree, and I hope you do too, Jay. The margin of victory of Obama does not represent any sort of mandate or "sweeping mandate". It strikes me as ambivalence on the part of the electorate.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,067
Points:3,142,860
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2012 1:23:21 PM

Pan, "it is being ignored" a lot less than your disloyalty to a nation that has given you so much. As someone that would consider taking up arms against America which part or parts of The Constitution are being ignored, (this should be good.)

Black, still can't work up the courage to admit you made a mistake on the first battle of the Civil War and Ft Sumter? Btw I have been to the cemetery of The Battle of Big Bethel in Va and they were killed nearly 2 months before Bull Run.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,641
Points:2,861,230
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2012 3:44:48 PM

50.96% to 47.28%.

3.1% or 3.68%? Either way it is not a mandate especially with the House won by the Republicans.

[Edited by: 101Speedster at 12/15/2012 3:48:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2012 3:35:52 PM


gocatgo, "Pan, The Constitution is still the law of the land, so your point is what?"

It is being ignored.

Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,067
Points:3,142,860
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2012 2:11:16 PM

Pan, The Constitution is still the law of the land, so your point is what? So far all you have done is duck and dodge which still makes me question your allegiance to America. It is obvious your loyalty is based on the party of the President in the White House. My loyalty to my nation is steadfast not based on party alignment, unlike yourself. Maybe your hero is Timothy Mcveigh? And people wonder what is wrong with America.

Black, your Civil War lecturing days are over. I gave you a list of battles before Bull Run and still you don't get it. As for Ft Sumter, the folks here in SC where the battle took place disagree with you. Overview of Ft Sumter battle. "Neither union or confederates fired shots", read it and weep. What is so hard about admitting you made a mistake? I probably took the same Va History and US History classes you did.

God Bless America!
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2012 8:01:53 AM

Jay - again, if you count the population represented by the Republican party in the House, that represents over half of America. Now, are half of Americans Republicans? Surely not. Are fully half of Americans Democrats? Well, Dems are shrinking in numbers. The fastest growing political party is the one I belong to - no party at all (independent). But why are the Democrats throwing the large minority under the bus, rather than working with them? Isn't this the basis of compromise and what is needed to move America in a positive direction?

BTW - Huffington Post shows the spread as 3.1%. They show 50.7% of votes cast vs. 47.6% for Mitt. The resource you have says "projected" across the top, if you read it carefully..

[Edited by: AC-302 at 12/15/2012 8:09:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,788
Points:2,210,815
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2012 1:12:11 AM

2012 presidential election results
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 10:16:34 PM

Jayrad said: "AC, it was closer to 4%. I am not the one saying anything about a mandate. Just pointing out the whining from the right talking about mandates."

--My understanding is that Obama won 50% of the votes cast, Romney won 48% of the votes cast, and the "other candidates" (and I don't mean Pat Paulson) won the other 2%. Those were the vote tally numbers I saw. Or did I miss something? Either way, 50/48 or 52/48, or 50/46.. does it matter? Sure, Obama won. But would you call any of those numbers "sweeping mandates"? More or less half of the folks in America obviously disagree with where Obama is taking the country. I'm an independent, fiscally right leaning, but socially moderate voter, and I think Obama is wrong. His fiscal spending on social programs, particularly during a time of economic recession and stagnation aren't going to work. We don't have enough money to support it. And Obama thinks that somehow, some way, we can tax the crap out of "the 1%" or even the "2%" or "5%" and get our way out of all this mess. Ain't gonna happen until our government gets spending in line with revenue. Simple to say, perhaps not so simple to do. And this is the crux of most folks' "beef" with Obama and his administration. Logic be damned - he's going to do it "his way", money or not. That's just wrong. And it seems to me the Democrats, if they can are wont to trample the Republicans and to rip away their voice. But understand that among the representatives, that's over half the American people he wants to negate.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 10:01:13 PM

Sorry but I have heard conflicting versions of what happened. I don't have references at my fingertips but I wish I had. But I am looking for references I can give you.

As for gocatgo concept of secession, my reference to Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War by Colonel G. F. R. Henderson is a good one. Chapter 4 deals with Secession. Henderson was British Officer whose book gives valuable unbias reporting based upon interviews with survivors. It was originally published in two volumes in Britain in 1898. I have a single paperback copy which I can't find. I apparently wrapped it up and put it in storage because some of the pages were coming loose from the binding. But then I remembered that I had made up a digital version as a Word 2003 document. Now all I need is a site I can upload it to and to give you a link to it.

Anderson taking possession of the fort on his own can be taken as an act of war before any shots were fired. Lincoln's order to stay in the fort is an act of war done without the consent of Congress.

From what I remember Fort Sumter was one of only two forts which still contained union troops. The other I believe was in Pensacola, Florida. The commanders of both forts had asked Lincoln if they should stay or vacate. Lincoln wrote back telling them to stay.

Gotta go now, my work load is limiting my time for research and comments. I wish I could remember where I came across other accounts of the Fort Sumter story.



[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 12/14/2012 10:04:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NE Guy
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:7,877
Points:1,016,410
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 4:37:04 PM

>>Fort Sumter was not a battle. It was a razing of the fort by Confederate artillery. Neither Union nor Confederate fired any shots at the other. The Confederate Officer in charge of the artillery was a friend of the Union commander of Fort Sumter. The two of them insured that the fort was vacant and that no one was hurt.<<

In what alternate history did this take place?
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:313,860
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 2:17:42 PM

BGT, while you have quite the reading list there, your history lesson still does not prove you right (that no shots were firsd ant the north started it all).
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,608
Points:1,862,165
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 2:02:46 PM


BlackGumTree, >>...Neither Union nor Confederate fired any shots at the other...<<
***
You may want to rethink your position on the Fort Sumter. The very first shots were fired by cadets from the Citadel at an unarmed merchant vessel, "Star of the West" which was attempting to reinforce Sumter.

After Lincoln was sorn into office, (per Wikipedia), "Lincoln's notification [to provide provisions] had been made to the governor of South Carolina, not the new Confederate government, which Lincoln did not recognize. Pickens consulted with Beauregard, the local Confederate commander. Soon Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard to repeat the demand for Sumter's surrender, and if it did not, to reduce the fort before the relief expedition arrived. The Confederate cabinet, meeting in Montgomery, endorsed Davis's order on April 9. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

The rest is history when (again according to Wikipedia), "At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James, fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson...."
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 1:35:26 PM

cymk - "I know quite a bit about the civil war, where are you getting your facts?"

I get my facts from reading history that comes from many sources. I have mentions some sources but apparently haven't bothered to check them. Start with the following:
1) The Constitution
2) The ratifications of the Constitution especially those of Virginia, New York, and the other northern state which I believe is Conneticut of Rhode Island.

Look up which states first talked about seceding. They were New England states sometime between 1810 and 1820. they didn't elect to secede but it was widely agreed that all states had a right to secede. With Virginia is was explicit.

Another good source is the book by G. F. R. Henderson a British historian entitled, "Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War". Henderson is unbiased and put a lot of research behind this work which included a lot of interviews with survivors of that conflict. This book addresses a lot of the action that involved Virginia.

And there are many others. But the above will get you started. Let me know when you are ready for more if you can't find them.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 12/14/2012 1:43:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
cymk
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:635
Points:313,860
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 12:45:53 PM

BGT, this is not about your allegiance to anytihng; nor is it about where you were born or raised.

I know quite a bit about the civil war, where are you getting your facts?

The confederacy was already formed and they had seceded in reaction to Lincoln's election (keep in mind James Buchanan was still in office at this time). Some months after lincoln inauguration, he had to choose whether or not to retaliate against the South for Ft. Sumter or send aid; he chose the later.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 11:16:25 AM


gocatgo, "Pan, have you decided whether or not you would take up arms against the USA yet?"

That depends upon whether or not the administration abandons the Constitution, usurps power, and institutes its own dictatorial system.

Under those circumstances what would YOU do?

Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,067
Points:3,142,860
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 10:48:25 AM

Pan, "all dictatorships" though Hitler was elected by the people of Germany. But the common connector is they were one party states. The opposition was either executed or in prison.

Tru, "hardly a mandate" tell that to the electoral college where the results aren't even close unless you consider over 100 votes close.

Marty, "republican math" or dementia? Sometimes they are one in the same.

Black, "firing shots" try that argument in SC and see how far it goes. Some people are proud of that historic event in SC. The fact that Abe was elected was reason enough for war to many in the South. The attack of Ft Sumter. The first battles of The Civil War. Bull run came after many other battles. Don't try to lecture me on The Civil war.

Pan, have you decided whether or not you would take up arms against the USA yet?

[Edited by: gocatgo at 12/14/2012 10:51:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,788
Points:2,210,815
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 10:05:56 AM

AC, it was closer to 4%. I am not the one saying anything about a mandate. Just pointing out the whining from the right talking about mandates.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 1:24:40 AM

Downbelow, gocatco complained: "Ac-, you heard talk but was anyone signing petitions in multiple states? The "symbolic gesture" points to disloyalty to America."

--OK, then are you going to criticize your own side for their seditious talk on secession during the '94 Republican revolt? It was brought up by Democrats when their side lost big. So? Where's your criticsm? Aren't you going to say something like: "Yeah, and that was wrong, too, we are ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, despite our political differences, and it's wrong of Democrats and liberals to complain so." C'mon - let me hear that from you.

And Jay - so are you saying, or not saying that Obama's ~2% margin of victory is a sweeping mandate and he should be allowed to run roughshod over the other 50% of the country (and their representatives) who do not agree with his policies as being good for America and it's interests?
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 10:16:04 PM


BlackGumTree, "Why is it you know so little of United States history, especially Virgina? And much of what you think you know is just not so"

The axe forgets; the wood remembers.

Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 10:10:57 PM

cymk - <<<No, they did not. The Confederates fired the first shots, and bombared Fort Sumter. Sure no one died as a direct result from the bombardment, but it was the 'opening volley' in the civil war.

BlackG, "they already seceded" Duh. So who attacked Ft Sumter and in doing so the USA? Apparently your first allegiance is not to America. You base your loyalty to America on the party in the White House. That is not how America works.>>>

My first allegiance is to the United States of America. I was born in Washington, DC and my family has been in Washington, DC since 1795. My loyalty to the USA is not based on party or ideology.

You don't really know what happened. The first act of war did not involve firing any shots and was done before Fort Sumter. The first act of war was committed by Abraham Lincoln while he was physically in the White House. You are apparently unaware that the president can commit an act of war while sitting at his desk in the White House. The first act of war does not need to be the firing of a shot.

The first shots of war were fired prior to Fort Sumter by a northern soldier or sailor but the incident is so minor it is usually ignored.

Fort Sumter was not a battle. It was a razing of the fort by Confederate artillery. Neither Union nor Confederate fired any shots at the other. The Confederate Officer in charge of the artillery was a friend of the Union commander of Fort Sumter. The two of them insured that the fort was vacant and that no one was hurt.

The first battle was the First Battle of Bull Run when the Union Army marched into Virginia followed by spectators from Washington, DC, hoping to be entertained by the spectacle. And they probably were until the victorious Union army got up on Henry Hill and faced a single brigade of Virginians who opened fire and proceeded to throw them off the Hill, rallying the retreating Confederate Army who then turned their defeat into the victory that is recorded today and chasing the Union survivors and the spectators back across the Potomac River to Washington, DC.

The Confederates were not trying to secede; they already had. They did not go into United States territory and attack the Union army; the Union army went into Virginia and attacked the Confederate army.

And when this happened, most Virginians including Confederate soldiers were against secession; but they accepted it to protect their right to secede documented by Virginia's ratification of the Constitution whenever it was felt it was in their best interests to do so.

The Confederate army returned the fire of the Union army to protect their country, their state, and their homes. And they were more knowledgeable of the situation than you are.

The Confederates only fired on the Union army after the Union army had fired on them.

Why is it you know so little of United States history, especially Virgina? And much of what you think you know is just not so.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 12/13/2012 10:20:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 4:01:07 PM

I would like to present you with my name for secessionist traitors.

Targets :o)
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,473
Points:830,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 4:00:26 PM

Don't you guys know? It's a mandate only if YOUR guy won; it's a division otherwise. lol
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,006
Points:323,105
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 3:48:56 PM

"The election difference was 3-4 million votes-hardly a mandate.."

In 2004, President Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry by 3.3 million votes. Nevertheless, many were quick to echo Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that "the nation" gave Bush a mandate. Republican math.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,788
Points:2,210,815
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 3:09:04 PM

"The election difference was 3-4 million votes-hardly a mandate..

We have a divided country...thanks to obama...."

The 2000 election was decided by about 500,000 votes. Was that Obama's fault as well?

GWB sure acted like he had a mandate. Was that Obama's fault as well?

[Edited by: jayrad1957 at 12/13/2012 3:09:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,608
Points:1,862,165
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 1:52:07 PM

mudtoe, >>Put in those terms, probably not. Unfortunately, if the questions were phrased something like: "In order to keep the freebies coming to you, we need to gut the Constitution and establish a socialist state. Are you in favor of this?" I'm afraid of how many people would answer yes to that question. <<
***
Hasn't the Congress and Executive branches been doing this for years to attain and maintain office for years? The only thing they haven't done is change the Constitution. Had they followed it, the financial mess we find ourselves today would not exist.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,473
Points:830,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 1:34:54 PM

Nope, I'd move to a diffeerent state.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,865
Points:1,881,910
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 1:12:51 PM

Panama: "Do you believe that the majority believe that our Constitution is a deeply flawed document and that it needs to be replaced by socialism and dictation by the central government over the population?"


Put in those terms, probably not. Unfortunately, if the questions were phrased something like: "In order to keep the freebies coming to you, we need to gut the Constitution and establish a socialist state. Are you in favor of this?" I'm afraid of how many people would answer yes to that question.


mudtoe

Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,690
Points:2,124,285
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 12:45:43 PM

The election difference was 3-4 million votes-hardly a mandate..

We have a divided country...thanks to obama....
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 11:49:23 AM


gocatgo, "You would no doubt be much happier in a one party nation. Germany during WWII, Stalin's USSR, N Korea and China may be much more to your liking"

No, those were all dictatorships. This is the problem I have with this administration; though Obama is just beginning the process and those you mentioned came to full flower.

Post a reply Back to Topics