The Maverick Richard Lee Armitage and the Outing of Valerie Plame

And I would suggest those doing the firing were not firing on their nation or state, rather that of their enemy, a perfectly normal act of war

Right.

Only in your mind, is attacking and firing on american troops serving under the american flag, and on a U.S. government installation considered an "honorable" thing to do.
 
And I would suggest those doing the firing were not firing on their nation or state, rather that of their enemy, a perfectly normal act of war

Why were american troops at Fort Sumter considered "the enemy"?

Did american troops at Fort Sumter attack southerners? Or did the southern traitors fire first?
 
Dixie said:
And I would suggest those doing the firing were not firing on their nation or state, rather that of their enemy, a perfectly normal act of war. Conducting a violent rampage through Georgia, burning cities and killing thousands of civilians, would probably be considered "a violation of the Geneva Convention" by todays standards as well, however, I don't see anyone suggesting that Sherman was a War Criminal.
Click to expand...

I think Sherman's actions were heinous and uncalled for.... that doesn't change for a minute the fact that those who fired on Fort Sumter were traitors and committing an act of treason.
 
Its part of southern mythology, that Sherman brutally raped and executed thousands of innocent civilians.

But its simply not true. Shermans march was deliberately destructive, as its aim was to destroy southern infrastructure and rob them of war-making ability. And no doubt, some rapes and executions of civilians may have occured. But, don't believe the southern mythology about deliberate genocide and executions.

The crocodile tears about "crimes against humanity" ring kind of hollow, from a people who enslaved, tortured, and abused millions of african-americans.
 
Damocles said:
This nation was built on Treason.
Click to expand...

Yep, most notably in the New England states.

The british Tory loyalists were particulary active in the deep south and the carolina's. That was considered by the King to be largely Pro-british territory. And a good source of Loyalist militias.

So, the deep south fought the United States twice

;)


caveat- to be fair, New York has a lot of British loyalists too. But, God Bless those New Englanders for winning the revolution for us!
 
Hey Dixie, if you ever get around to reading this, I'm just jerking your chain.

I like the south. Maybe not its history of slavery, but I'm a semi-native son of the deep south. There's a lot of good folk down there.
 
Cypress said:
trea?son
noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

The United States Federal Government was overthrown in the southern states dixie. It began at Fort Sumter, where you're relatives attacked and killed american soliders serving under the american flag.

It was a treasonous act of rebellion. The south didn't like the election of Abe Lincoln, and decided to overthrow federal authority throughout the south.

Treason and rebellion is not something I'd be proud of dude.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Federal Government was not the nation or state of the Confederacy. That seems to be the point you are missing, they seceded, and were not part of the Federal government, therefore, they couldn't commit treason against it. You are correct, the South did not like the election of Abe Lincoln, and it had nothing to do with his position on slavery. They didn't simply decide to overthrow the federal government, they formally seceded from the government and declared their own independence as a nation, it's completely different from overthrowing the government. The Confederate States had no intention of overthrowing the Federal government, they simply wanted autonomy from it. This doesn't comport with the definition of "treason" at all.
 
Cypress said:
Its part of southern mythology, that Sherman brutally raped and executed thousands of innocent civilians.

But its simply not true. Shermans march was deliberately destructive, as its aim was to destroy southern infrastructure and rob them of war-making ability. And no doubt, some rapes and executions of civilians may have occured. But, don't believe the southern mythology about deliberate genocide and executions.

The crocodile tears about "crimes against humanity" ring kind of hollow, from a people who enslaved, tortured, and abused millions of african-americans.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I have seen the results of Shermans march, and he most certainly did burn entire cities and kill thousands of civilians in the South. There is no mythology, the actual sites are well marked across the state of Georgia, if you are ever down this way, they can educate you on the many atrocities committed by Sherman in his march to Savannah.

And let's get something else straight, the South was not the only place in America that had slaves. Certainly, they had the most slaves, but the Northern states had slaves as well, they weren't a bunch of abolitionists who detested slavery, as you seem to be mythologicaly painting them with your statement. Again, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, this became the issue that Lincoln used to turn public opinion and foreign support for the Confederates.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, but the Federal Government was not the nation or state of the Confederacy. That seems to be the point you are missing, they seceded, and were not part of the Federal government, therefore, they couldn't commit treason against it. You are correct, the South did not like the election of Abe Lincoln, and it had nothing to do with his position on slavery. They didn't simply decide to overthrow the federal government, they formally seceded from the government and declared their own independence as a nation, it's completely different from overthrowing the government. The Confederate States had no intention of overthrowing the Federal government, they simply wanted autonomy from it. This doesn't comport with the definition of "treason" at all.
Click to expand...

Just like the South alright, they had the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court but the Democrats in the South didn't get the Presidential candidate they wanted so they decided to take their ball and go home. Now, those same people are running the country again under a new party moniker and they are still trying to dictate the way the country will be run and who will do what. We saw how they handled the election of Clinton, let's see what they do the next time. I bet they show themselves to be the same sore losers they were last time. Just watch! That's a prediction.
 
Cypress said:
And I would suggest those doing the firing were not firing on their nation or state, rather that of their enemy, a perfectly normal act of war

Why were american troops at Fort Sumter considered "the enemy"?

Did american troops at Fort Sumter attack southerners? Or did the southern traitors fire first?
Click to expand...


It's actually not known who fired first. Yes, the Union American forces were considered the enemy to the Confederate American forces, that's why they called it a "Civil War." You can continue to misinterpret the action as treason, but by your own delimiters, our Revolution against Britain was a traitorous act as well... so that makes us all "traitors" to the extent you are applying the word.
 
Back to history lessons again. South Carolina succeeded from the union. They declared themselves a seperate country. the other southern states joined them one by one and they formed the confederacy. An alliance of states to stand against the federals.

The march through Georgia was to destroy the infrastucture of the south and break the morale of the southerners. It was to show the might of the federal government. Cities were burned people were killed. Everyone was left to starve as all the food was taken or destroyed. It's not widely know but South Carolina suffered more than Georgia. They were deemed the ones that started it all and when the union troops went through there they left nothing standing. Sherman marched up the coast while Grant fought his way south.

Lincoln made the emancipation proclaimation as a political move to keep Britain from siding with the confederacy. Britain was about to declare its official support of the confederacy when he did this. If the US government says there is no slavery allowed in the country as England had done years before then the Brits could not enter the war supporting the confederacy as the CSA supported slavery.

Though slavery was the issue behind it the Civil War was fought over states rights.
 
Fort Sumter was fired on because the Union troops there refused to surrender the fort. It was part of a chain of forts along the coast. And its occupation would prevent vital supplies from reaching the city. It was a perfectly logical move on the part of the South Carolinans.
 
Gaffer said:
Fort Sumter was fired on because the Union troops there refused to surrender the fort. It was part of a chain of forts along the coast. And its occupation would prevent vital supplies from reaching the city. It was a perfectly logical move on the part of the South Carolinans.
Click to expand...

the treasonous traitorous South Carolinians.... no doubt
 
Gaffer said:
Fort Sumter was fired on because the Union troops there refused to surrender the fort. It was part of a chain of forts along the coast. And its occupation would prevent vital supplies from reaching the city. It was a perfectly logical move on the part of the South Carolinans.
Click to expand...

Its a "logical" to ask american soldiers at an american fort to "surrender"?

Why did southerners want them to surrender? What dasterdly and evil thing did the american soldiers do?
 
Cypress said:
Its a "logical" to ask american soldiers at an american fort to "surrender"?

Why did southerners want them to surrender? What dasterdly and evil thing did the american soldiers do?
Click to expand...


He just explained it to you, Confederate American soldiers in South Carolina, wanted the Federal American soldiers to leave, they were preventing supplies from reaching the city. You keep wanting to say "American" in reference to Northern forces, and that is a wholly inaccurate representation and view, both sides were American. Did you learn this in school? Or were you busy sketching Star Trek figures when they taught you US History?
 
Dixie said:
He just explained it to you, Confederate American soldiers in South Carolina, wanted the Federal American soldiers to leave, they were preventing supplies from reaching the city. You keep wanting to say "American" in reference to Northern forces, and that is a wholly inaccurate representation and view, both sides were American. Did you learn this in school? Or were you busy sketching Star Trek figures when they taught you US History?
Click to expand...


You southerners bailed on the U.S constitution, the flag, and the United States.

Why is that? Becasue you hated the U.S. constitution. And wanted your own country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top