Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And to the wood shed yet again with you, whipper snapper.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.
I didn't say it would be simple. If there was no war fought, however, the Cons wouldn't feel like such losers. Nipping the idiocy in the bud by executing traitors on the spot seems like it would have been a better idea. No one whines and moans about the Whiskey Rebellion.instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?
It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....
I can't really agree with that as a lot of Southerners were victims of their own stupidity and the greed of the plantation owners. But executing those that deliberately took up arms against the US would have avoided a war to begin with.I didn't say it would be simple. If there was no war fought, however, the Cons wouldn't feel like such losers. Nipping the idiocy in the bud by executing traitors on the spot seems like it would have been a better idea. No one whines and moans about the Whiskey Rebellion.instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?
It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....
Lincoln should have let Sherman finish the job with his scorched earth policy
I wish that were true. Florida is a rabid right wing nuthouse.The only whining I see is the from the winners of the war. Northerners have all moved south, and turned Georgia and Florida into another Chicago and Coney Island. As I Southerner, I had to escape to the West just for a little peace.
What spot? They seceded in their own states so the only way to execute them on the spot would be to invade their state and capture them. That sounds a lot like going to war.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.
They attempted to purchase all federal property as well and pay off their portion of the federal debt, but were completely ignored. Ignoring the fact that the secession of the southern states could have been handled peacefully and diplomatically seems dishonest.Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.
What you're saying doesn't make sense. You're saying they should have executed the people who took up arms against them. They did. In the war. That's what war is.I can't really agree with that as a lot of Southerners were victims of their own stupidity and the greed of the plantation owners. But executing those that deliberately took up arms against the US would have avoided a war to begin with.I didn't say it would be simple. If there was no war fought, however, the Cons wouldn't feel like such losers. Nipping the idiocy in the bud by executing traitors on the spot seems like it would have been a better idea. No one whines and moans about the Whiskey Rebellion.instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?
It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....
Lincoln should have let Sherman finish the job with his scorched earth policy
The mistake was not doing it by engineering a Constitutional Convention and ending the Union peacefully.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.
You never heard of Antietam?With the exception of Gettysburg, all major battles were in Confederate territory. The Union invaded a foreign country.
It is over with anyway.I'm not sure what is going on here. I see a lot of my like minded liberal poster friends here. Why is the civil war an issue to anybody? Slavery was wrong, but most US presidents up until then were slave owners. The South was wrong to go to war over a bad issue, but that wrong has been made right. The soldiers and officers of the South fought for their states, which they considered as trumping the union. They were not dishonorable. They would have been branded cowards and slackers if they had not fought. They were brave men, and they fought a lost cause. In fact, they believed in their cause more than most kids who were sent to Vietnam for no particular reason. My great grandfather fought for all 4 years, was captured twice and shot once. He carried a mini ball in his leg for the rest of his life. The only reason he kept the leg is that he heard the doctor say that it had to come off, and he crawled to and hid in a barn until it healed.
i was born in the deep South, and I have always been a liberal. i have never been a racist. All this talk about killing and executing over a war that ended 150 years ago is disturbing to say the least. I'm not proud of the USA for what we did to Native Americans, and I am not proud of the cause for which the Confederate states fought. However, I am proud of the bravery and honor of those that took up arms against an invading army. Thier cause may have been wrong, but their hearts were not. I can also say with the same breath that the union cause was just, and their victory was necessary and a good thing.
Sherman was the first in modern history to wage "Total War", in the sense that he destroyed the confederate infrastructure, not just it's military. Because of Sherman, Southern civilians suffered greatly. Yet, he, too did what he had to do, and is not to be condemned for starving civilians. He was the 1863-64 version of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. I can find no fault in either.
So, you are of the opinion warrants should have been issued, and Southerners would have just walked down to the Sheriff's office and turned themselves in?I can't really agree with that as a lot of Southerners were victims of their own stupidity and the greed of the plantation owners. But executing those that deliberately took up arms against the US would have avoided a war to begin with.I didn't say it would be simple. If there was no war fought, however, the Cons wouldn't feel like such losers. Nipping the idiocy in the bud by executing traitors on the spot seems like it would have been a better idea. No one whines and moans about the Whiskey Rebellion.instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?
It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....
Lincoln should have let Sherman finish the job with his scorched earth policy
No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.
But Ravir, if all the Southern Rebels had been shot, there would be NO Democrat Party today!
And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted. Public sentiment was against forcing the south to remain in the Union, and Lincoln needed an inciting event to change that. That's not to excuse the south for firing on Fort Sumter, of course, because that was obviously dumb.No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.How do you shoot the Confederates who orchestrated the secession without going to war? It doesn't seem likely that they'd simply turn themselves in or let Union soldiers come hang them in their own states.
And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.
The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.
And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.Execute them on the spot for attacking US interests.
And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.
The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.
Yes, not resupplying the forts would have sent the message that Lincoln was interested in diplomacy, but he wasn't. He wanted to bring the south to heel and force them to pay their tribute to his government. Easy to see why the south wanted nothing to do with him, and why he was hated in the north while in office. The fact that Lincoln, like Presidents before and after him, was willing to sacrifice the safety and lives of his men so that he could start the war that he wanted speaks volumes.And not one of those soldiers was killed, and they were allowed to return home. Lincoln, of course, knew the fort would be fired on when he tried to resupply it, and that's exactly what he wanted..No, they didn't. With the exception of a few forts, the US government owned nothing in the Confederacy.Well, no. They attempted to steal US property.They didn't attack US interests. They formed a separate nation which the North invaded.
And one of those forts was filled full of American troops when the rebel forces started firing upon it.
The OP is full of BS, but let us not forget- Federal troops didn't fire first.
Not for lack of trying were no Federal troops killed. And yes- Lincoln knew attempting to resupply the forts would likely prompt a response- but not resupplying the forts would have been a response too.
Yes- Lincoln was smart enough to wait until the South fired on Union troops first.
