New Website on the American Civil War

[TNHarley]

the feds would have had no excuse for sending food in the first place.

They were resupplying the fort with guns and ammo.

Was the federal garrison on Fort Sumter "trespassing"?

Yes. They had seceded.

 

[mikegriffith1]

They were resupplying the fort with guns and ammo.

No, they were bringing food. They did not intend to offlaod any guns and ammo to the garrison.

Yes. They had seceded.

Yes, they had seceded, but they had seceded without just cause, and they had refused to do their constitutional duty to accept the results of the 1860 election. If Lincoln had begun to violate Southern rights after he took office, then the Southern states would have had just cause to secede, but they didn't even give Lincoln a chance and refused to honor the election results based on their baseless belief that Lincoln intended to harm the South, an erroneous view based on the shameful propaganda spewed by pro-slavery radicals, especially the Fire-Eaters.

I say this as someone who does not bash the Confederacy or Confederate heritage. In my view, secession was an unjustified action, but I acknowledge that the Confederacy was a democratic republic that was quite similar to the U.S. in terms of freedom of the press and other basic rights. I know that the Confederate constitution allowed for the admission of free states to the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. I also know that the Confederacy began moving toward gradual emancipation in late 1864. And, yes, several thousand blacks voluntarily served as combat soldiers in the Confederate army, along with about 5,000 Hispanics and several thousand Native Americans, not to mention about 10,000 Jews.

All this being said, I think Southern heritage defenders should follow Robert E. Lee's advice and stop displaying the Confederate flag.

I also think Southern heritage defenders should stop bashing Lincoln and do some balanced reading about Lincoln's actions and views. Lincoln was no tyrant, nor was he a socialist. The likes of Thaddeus Stevens and Benjamin Wade were definitely tyrants, as they proved after Lincoln's death, but Lincoln was not.

 

[TNHarley]

No, they were bringing food. They did not intend to offlaod any guns and ammo to the garrison.

I was thinking of buchanon. My apologies.

Yes, they had seceded, but they had seceded without just cause.

To you, perhaps.

I also think Southern heritage defenders should stop bashing Lincoln

Well, maybe he shouldnt have done what he did, and people wouldnt be calling him a tyrant for acting like one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have finally created a new website on the American Civil War. My site presents a view of the Civil War that is rarely discussed in our history books, a view that steers a middle course between the pro-Southern Lost Cause narrative and the standard pro-Northern narrative that dominates our history books.

The American Civil War: An Alternative View

your revisionist opinion of that war is wrong on every count.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm really not even sure JoeB131 is a grown man, but he is indeed ignorant on virtually every issue he tries to discuss. He's also a vile anti-Semite who defends Hamas, whitewashes Nazi hatred of Jews, praises Mao and Stalin, and once famously said "Hitler wasn't the problem" while repeating the Nazi myth that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI. On most forums, he would have been banned long ago.

Wow, that sounds pretty terrible- taken out of context or completely misrepresented... which is why you do, of course.

Anyway, the decision to fire on Fort Sumter was a terrible blunder that played right into the hands of the Radical Republicans and made a peaceful accommodation impossible. An infinitely wiser move would have been to let the feds resupply the Fort Sumter garrison. For that matter, if the Confederates had not foolishly cut off food shipments to the garrison, the feds would have had no excuse for sending food in the first place.

Hold on, Mikey, what 'accommedation' do you think the North should have made? The South wanted to illegally secede from the Union. They did so in order to allow some truly awful human beings to keep owning other human beings.

Was the federal garrison on Fort Sumter "trespassing"? That all depends on one's view of the validity of the Deep South's secession. Secession was a rash, unjustified action. Lincoln posed no threat to Southern slavery. After the 1860 election, the South still retained control of the Senate, so they could have blocked any legislation they deemed unacceptable. The Deep South states had a constitutional duty to honor the election results.

Well, debatable that the South "controlled" the Senate. Of the 68 Seats in the Senate, the Republicans controlled 31 and the Democrats controlled 31. And a lot of those Democrats were from non-slave states. Furthermore, the South saw the writing on the wall of all those new territories that would be admitted as free states, they wouldn't retain control of the Senate for long.

We need to keep in mind that secession occurred in two stages. The seven Deep South states seceded and formed the Confederacy. The four Upper South states rejected secession and remained in the Union. They only joined the Confederacy later, after the Fort Sumter attack and after Lincoln announced he would be sending a federal army into the seceded states.

Do you really think they'd have stayed in the union for long?

 

[JoeB131]

your revisionist opinion of that war is wrong on every count.

That's okay, you should see some of the other crazy stuff he says.

The Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor because we wouldn't sell them stuff to kill more Chinese.

The Rape of Nanjing wasn't that bad, really. More like a "getting a little grabby with Nanjing".

JFK was killed by a grand conspiracy.

Sirhan Sirhan was mind-controlled by the CIA to kill RFK.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's okay, you should see some of the other crazy stuff he says.

The Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor because we wouldn't sell them stuff to kill more Chinese.

The Rape of Nanjing wasn't that bad, really. More like a "getting a little grabby with Nanjing".

JFK was killed by a grand conspiracy.

Sirhan Sirhan was mind-controlled by the CIA to kill RFK.

I have seen the pearl Harbor excuse from him before. He is an idiot and encourages other idiots.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm really not even sure JoeB131 is a grown man, but he is indeed ignorant on virtually every issue he tries to discuss. He's also a vile anti-Semite who defends Hamas, whitewashes Nazi hatred of Jews, praises Mao and Stalin, and once famously said "Hitler wasn't the problem" while repeating the Nazi myth that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI. On most forums, he would have been banned long ago.

Anyway, the decision to fire on Fort Sumter was a terrible blunder that played right into the hands of the Radical Republicans and made a peaceful accommodation impossible. An infinitely wiser move would have been to let the feds resupply the Fort Sumter garrison. For that matter, if the Confederates had not foolishly cut off food shipments to the garrison, the feds would have had no excuse for sending food in the first place.

Was the federal garrison on Fort Sumter "trespassing"? That all depends on one's view of the validity of the Deep South's secession. Secession was a rash, unjustified action. Lincoln posed no threat to Southern slavery. After the 1860 election, the South still retained control of the Senate, so they could have blocked any legislation they deemed unacceptable. The Deep South states had a constitutional duty to honor the election results.

We need to keep in mind that secession occurred in two stages. The seven Deep South states seceded and formed the Confederacy. The four Upper South states rejected secession and remained in the Union. They only joined the Confederacy later, after the Fort Sumter attack and after Lincoln announced he would be sending a federal army into the seceded states.

When you say 'playing into the hands of the Radical Republicans' you're speaking of Lincoln and Seward. They were not looking for a peaceful accommodation. When you say 'playing into their hands', you admit the North started the War. The South 'peacefully' seceded. It was left up to Lincoln and the North to decide for war.

Buchannan and Lincoln were not just sending food. They were sending food and arms and lying about it the whole time. Both were caught in their lies. What a presidential cabinet that was. And you believe their lies and now spread their lies.

Secession was justified. Oh you like to preach 'constitutional duty' concerning the South. Yet the North didn't give a shit about their 'constitutional duty'. In fact, the North branded the Constitution a 'covenant with death and hell'. The North resisted the Constitutional fugitive slave law. (Art. IV Sec. 2 Clause 3) And they resisted the fugitive slave act of 1850. And they resisted the Dred Scott decision. And they allowed John Brown to roam free in the North, as he prepared for his invasion of the South at Harpers Ferry. Which, by the way was the first shot fired in the War Between The States. And they supported John Browns invasion, helping him with freedom and funds.

Yet you say the South had a 'constitutional duty'. Bullshit The South had a constitutional duty to its people to secede.

Why do we need to keep in mind the secession of the lower and upper Southern States? Because it shows that War was Lincoln's intention all along. Lincoln didn't come down to free any damn slave. He came down to destroy the South, set up a new Constitution, whereby the New England Yankee was in control of all States and the westward expansion.

You're just shittin yourself.

Quantrill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When you say 'playing into the hands of the Radical Republicans' you're speaking of Lincoln and Seward. They were not looking for a peaceful accommodation. When you say 'playing into their hands', you admit the North started the War. The South 'peacefully' seceded. It was left up to Lincoln and the North to decide for war.

Buchannan and Lincoln were not just sending food. They were sending food and arms and lying about it the whole time. Both were caught in their lies. What a presidential cabinet that was. And you believe their lies and now spread their lies.

Secession was justified. Oh you like to preach 'constitutional duty' concerning the South. Yet the North didn't give a shit about their 'constitutional duty'. In fact, the North branded the Constitution a 'covenant with death and hell'. The North resisted the Constitutional fugitive slave law. (Art. IV Sec. 2 Clause 3) And they resisted the fugitive slave act of 1850. And they resisted the Dred Scott decision. And they allowed John Brown to roam free in the North, as he prepared for his invasion of the South at Harpers Ferry. Which, by the way was the first shot fired in the War Between The States. And they supported John Browns invasion, helping him with freedom and funds.

Yet you say the South had a 'constitutional duty'. Bullshit The South had a constitutional duty to its people to secede.

Why do we need to keep in mind the secession of the lower and upper Southern States? Because it shows that War was Lincoln's intention all along. Lincoln didn't come down to free any damn slave. He came down to destroy the South, set up a new Constitution, whereby the New England Yankee was in control of all States and the westward expansion.

You're just shittin yourself.

Quantrill

you are delusional

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now for a brief history lesson. Lincoln tried to reconcile with the southern states. He allowed them to take over armories that were federal property and bases that were federal forts. Fort Sumter was occupied by a federal Garrison and was not going to be turned over to the state it was once a part of. It was Federal property.

Lincoln did not call up troops while the south mobilized its militia and prepared for war. Once South Carolina ATTACKED the Federal Fort THEN Lincoln called up troops. The South started the war.

 

[JoeB131]

When you say 'playing into the hands of the Radical Republicans' you're speaking of Lincoln and Seward. They were not looking for a peaceful accommodation. When you say 'playing into their hands', you admit the North started the War. The South 'peacefully' seceded. It was left up to Lincoln and the North to decide for war.

Buchannan and Lincoln were not just sending food. They were sending food and arms and lying about it the whole time. Both were caught in their lies. What a presidential cabinet that was. And you believe their lies and now spread their lies.

Fort Sumter was Federal Property. The South had no business seizing it.

Secession was justified. Oh you like to preach 'constitutional duty' concerning the South. Yet the North didn't give a shit about their 'constitutional duty'. In fact, the North branded the Constitution a 'covenant with death and hell'. The North resisted the Constitutional fugitive slave law. (Art. IV Sec. 2 Clause 3) And they resisted the fugitive slave act of 1850. And they resisted the Dred Scott decision. And they allowed John Brown to roam free in the North, as he prepared for his invasion of the South at Harpers Ferry. Which, by the way was the first shot fired in the War Between The States. And they supported John Browns invasion, helping him with freedom and funds.

Um, guy, the fact of the matter is, Slavery was not "Justified", it was an evil institution that should have been abolished when we threw out the British. You can't start a country based on "All Men Are Created Equal" and then say, "Except you guy, you guys are property!!!"

John Brown was executed by Federal Troops, they hardly let him "roam free". When the war started, he was seen as a hero.

 

[mikegriffith1]

mikegriffith1 said:
Yes, they had seceded, but they had seceded without just cause.
To you, perhaps.

Alright, what was their just cause for seceding? The South controlled the Senate and thus could block any unwanted legislation, and they maintained control of the Senate in the 1860 election. John Brown had been executed and his collaborators had fled. Northern public opinion strongly condemned the John Brown raid. The South's economy was doing very well. The Morrill Tariff rates were not as high as some previous rates. The Missouri Compromise line had been voided and popular sovereignty was the new rule for slavery in the territories.

Yes, the South did still control the Senate. It was only after Southern states seceded that the Republicans had 31 Senators. If the South had not seceded, they still would have controlled the Senate, and no territory could be admitted as a state without Senate approval.

So why did the Deep South states have any reason to secede?

I see JoeB131 is trotting out his usual lies and distortions about my views. Even my views that he correctly describes bear no resemblance to his obscene views on Hitler, Nazi hatred of the Jews, Jews in general, Stalin, Mao, the betrayal of Free China, Hamas, Israel, etc., etc.

He howls because I believe that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, but two of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard and Dr. Herbert Spiegal of Columbia University, have reached the same conclusion.

Dr. Spiegel concluded that "Sirhan was probably programmed through hypnosis to fire a gun in the presence of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall either the events or the process of being programmed" (Hypnosis in the Case of Sirhan Sirhan)

I recommend the video The Real Manchurian Candidate, which is available on YouTube. In the video, Dr. Brown explains his years-long examination of Sirhan and his conclusion that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to shoot RFK and not to remember doing so.

This is a good example of a credible minority viewpoint that JoeB131 denounces in order to deflect attention away from his truly obscene views, such as his view that "Hitler wasn't the problem," that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI, that Hamas terrorists are the good guys and the Israelis are the bad guys, that Hamas-run Gaza is more democratic than Israel, that Mao and Stalin were great leaders, that Mao was less brutal than Chiang Kai-shek, that Stalin didn't really murder tens of millions of Russians to consolidate his power, that Red China was better than Free China, that the CIA was hounding Iris Chang, that Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty and that Jews controlled the Navy Court of Inquiry to ensure it did not reveal the "facts" (i.e., that the Israelis knew the Liberty was a U.S. ship and attacked it anyway), etc., etc., etc.

RetiredGySgt said:
your revisionist opinion of that war is wrong on every count.

I have seen the pearl Harbor excuse from him before. He is an idiot and encourages other idiots.

No, my view of the Civil War is not "wrong on every count." You must know very little about the war to make such a statement.

My "Pearl Harbor excuse"? FYI, a number of senior Navy officers believed FDR knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked and allowed it to happen in order to get the U.S. into WWII. These officers included Admiral Halsey, Admiral Theobold, Admiral Tolley, and Admiral Richardson, to name a few.

How do you explain all the evidence that FDR knew the attack was coming? Have you heard of the Hoover-Ladd memos? The bomb-plot messages, which we know FDR read? The Navy intelligence document, discovered by historian John Costello and naval expert Roger Pineau, that proves the "East Wind Rain" execute message was intercepted on 4 December, just as Captain Safford said it was? And on and on I could go.

If the U.S. Government said the Earth were flat, you would be on here blindly defending this claim too, and you'd insist that anyone who disagreed with you had to be an "idiot."

 

[JoeB131]

Alright, what was their just cause for seceding? The South controlled the Senate and thus could block any unwanted legislation, and they maintained control of the Senate in the 1860 election. John Brown had been executed and his collaborators had fled. Northern public opinion strongly condemned the John Brown raid. The South's economy was doing very well. The Morrill Tariff rates were not as high as some previous rates. The Missouri Compromise line had been voided and popular sovereignty was the new rule for slavery in the territories.

The Morill Tarffis weren't implemented until after the South Seceded.

With the exception of some weird cult in Utah trying to make it a slave territory (and failing), there was no desire for slavery in the new territories. Kansas, Nebraska, California, and Oregon had been admitted as free states. The South could see the writing on the wall. Eventually, they would lose their advantage in the Senate.

Yes, the South did still control the Senate. It was only after Southern states seceded that the Republicans had 31 Senators. If the South had not seceded, they still would have controlled the Senate, and no territory could be admitted as a state without Senate approval.

Um, not really. The problem was the Democrats were divided between Northern factions that were not so cool with slavery and a southern faction that was willing to break up the union so a few rich white a-holes could keep raping their slaves.

Furthermore, if the South stayed in the Union, there would have been increasing international pressure to end slavery. (It's why Britain and France resisted the urge to recognize the Confederacy, even though it would have been politically advantageous for them to do so.)

I see JoeB131 is trotting out his usual lies and distortions about my views. Even my views that he correctly describes bear no resemblance to his obscene views on Hitler, Nazi hatred of the Jews, Jews in general, Stalin, Mao, the betrayal of Free China, etc.

On Hitler, yes, it's intellectually lazy to think Hitler happened because the Germans all lost their minds one day. Much harder to grasp that a decade of horrors after WWI led to Hitler. Then again, we had it good; we still elected the Nazi Trump because the black man in the White House scared us, and then after he royally fucked things up, we put him in again because the black lady scared us. (And eggs were too expensive, I guess.)

Um, guy, what "Free China". Chiang was an inept warlord who just beat the other warlords into submission before letting the Japanese rape the country. This is why Chinese rallied to Mao's banner.

If you talk to any Chinese about Mao, they see him as the father of their country.

Now, take my wife, please. She was born in Manchuria in 1961, barely survived the Great Famine, and her family moved to Sichuan after her father was denounced during the Cultural Revolution. The reason she's here is that the CCP won't let her practice her religion in peace. Yet she thinks the world of Mao, because of what Mao accomplished. He unified the country and made it a world power.

Now, part of it is because they are indoctrinated from childhood. Yup. But the same thing could be said about Russians with Stalin, and the USSR still denounced him after he took that well-deserved dirt nap.

My "Pearl Harbor excuse"? FYI, a number of senior Navy officers believed FDR knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked and allowed it to happen in order to get the U.S. into WWII. These officers included Admiral Halsey, Admiral Theobold, Admiral, and Admiral Richardson, to name a few. How do you explain all the evidence that FDR knew the attack was coming? Have you heard of the Hoover-Ladd memos? The bomb-plot messages, which we know FDR read? The Navy intelligence document, discovered by historian John Costello and naval expert Roger Pineau, that proves the "East Wind Rain" execute message was intercepted on 4 December, just as Captain Safford said it was? And on and on I could go.

Yes, you could go on and on, but you'd still sound like a crazy person. The reason why the Pearl Harbor Attack was such a success was that few people thought the Japanese could pull something like that off. Naval thinking was still that the Battleship was supreme and the Aircraft Carrier was kind of a novelty.

(Also, it wasn't that much of a success in that only two battleships were destroyed. The other six were damaged but back in action by 1942. We never lost another battleship after Pearl Harbor.)

But let's grant that Pearl Harbor was a huge miss by intelligence at all levels, much like 9/11 was. That really doesn't justify the Japanese doing it in the first place, does it?

Let's be clear what your heroes were doing here. They were conducting a GENOCIDAL war in China. FDR sanctioned them and stopped selling them the materials to conduct that war. Their response was to seize the colonial possessions of the European Powers in SE Asia.

If the U.S. Government said the Earth were flat, you would be on here blindly defending this claim too, and you'd insist that anyone who disagreed with you had to be an "idiot."

The problem with conspiracy theories is that you can never really defeat them, whether it be "Bush knew about 9/11" or "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" or "The government is hiding aliens in Area 51". Any evidence to the contrary is just rejected as "Part of the cover up" by conspiracy nutters like you.

 

[Quantrill]

Now for a brief history lesson. Lincoln tried to reconcile with the southern states. He allowed them to take over armories that were federal property and bases that were federal forts. Fort Sumter was occupied by a federal Garrison and was not going to be turned over to the state it was once a part of. It was Federal property.

Lincoln did not call up troops while the south mobilized its militia and prepared for war. Once South Carolina ATTACKED the Federal Fort THEN Lincoln called up troops. The South started the war.

That's a lie. Sumter had nothing but civilian workers there as it was never finished. In fact, it broke the 3 year agreement that if not finished in 3 years it went back to South Carolina, secession or not. Secession settled the issue.

When Anderson moved his force from Moultrie to Sumter he attacked the workers there and forced them back by bayonet. His move to Moultrie was an act of war as no move by the military was to take place, or any reinforcement of arms while negotiations were ongoing. That is another start of War Between The States.

More lies heaped upon the Buchanan and Lincoln administration.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Fort Sumter was Federal Property. The South had no business seizing it.



Um, guy, the fact of the matter is, Slavery was not "Justified", it was an evil institution that should have been abolished when we threw out the British. You can't start a country based on "All Men Are Created Equal" and then say, "Except you guy, you guys are property!!!"

John Brown was executed by Federal Troops, they hardly let him "roam free". When the war started, he was seen as a hero.

There was no more 'Federal' in South Carolina. Secession removed the Federal.

Slavery didn't need to be justified. It was legal and protected. Your opinions on slavery don't mean shit.

No. More Yankee lies. John Brown was executed by the State of Virginia.

And yes, John Brown was allowed to roam free in the North, meeting with anti-slavery groups and gathering funds for his attack upon the South. And all that while he was wanted for the mass murders he committed in Kansas.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

There was no more 'Federal' in South Carolina. Secession removed the Federal.

Except that Secession was an illegal act. Also, really stupid.

Slavery didn't need to be justified. It was legal and protected. Your opinions on slavery don't mean shit.

The biggest mistake we made after the Civil War was that we didn't have a Nuremberg trial for the Confederate Leaders and Plantation owners.

 

[mikegriffith1]

None other than Dr. James G. Randall, one of the leading Lincoln and Civil War historians of the 20th century, said this about McClellan and the Radical Republicans:

McClellan created an efficient army out of an unmilitary aggregation. The army that fought at Gettysburg was largely of his building. He operated against the Confederacy at its military peak; only an amateur would suppose that he was unwise in demanding full preparation when taking the offensive against Richmond. His requests for troops and supplies, so sarcastically denounced, were a matter of appraising what was needed to overwhelm Confederate defense under able Southern commanders. Never did the Union army under McClellan suffer a major defeat. The worst that Lee accomplished against him was to administer a temporary setback at Gaines’s Mill. The campaign against Richmond was in mid-progress when the incredible order came from Washington to drop it all and leave the Peninsula.

That withdrawal allowed Lee to move north, overwhelm Pope, and create panic at the Union capital. At this hour of peril McClellan saved Washington and the Union cause at Antietam. In 1862 he had planned to operate against Richmond from the south as Grant did in 1864; there is reason to believe that he would have succeeded as well as Grant did, and far sooner. One could make out a case to show that Grant was as slow as McClellan. It is simply that history is not usually written in those terms. Among surviving veterans no tradition was stronger than admiration for “Little Mac” and confidence in his leadership. No one can measure the effect of the attack behind the lines which destroyed him, and nearly destroyed the Union cause. There were times when it seemed that Radicals actually dreaded Union victory if it should come too soon and under McClellan. (Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, pp. 84-85.)

 

[Quantrill]

Except that Secession was an illegal act. Also, really stupid.

The biggest mistake we made after the Civil War was that we didn't have a Nuremberg trial for the Confederate Leaders and Plantation owners.

No. Secession was not an illegal act. See Article X of that document, known as the Bill of Rights. Is it stupid to follow the Constitution? According to Yankees in 1861 it was. And according to brain dead Yankees today, it was.

Oh, you need to brush up on your history. The Yankees hung as many as they could before the legal courts were back in secession. But once legality set in, they had a hard time of it.

Ever heard of the trial that never was, concerning Jeff Davis? Oh yes, they cried they would hang Jeff from a sour apple tree. They would show the world what Yankees do to 'traitors'. Then they shit all over themselves.

So, tell me about the trial of Jeff Davis, the most hated man in Yankee land. Do you know anything about it? I doubt it. Go ahead and google and get what you can. Then get back with me with your uninformed position. Unless your scared.

Tell me again who John Brown was executed by?

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

No. Secession was not an illegal act. See Article X of that document, known as the Bill of Rights. Is it stupid to follow the Constitution? According to Yankees in 1861 it was. And according to brain dead Yankees today, it was.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say a state can secede if it's having a hissy fit?

Oh, you need to brush up on your history. The Yankees hung as many as they could before the legal courts were back in secession. But once legality set in, they had a hard time of it.

Um, no, they didn't hang any of the big traitors. They hung a few low level guys, I'm sure, but what we didn't have was accountability, like you had for the Nazis and Japanese after WWII. (Oh, wait, Mike thinks that it was horrible that there were trials in Tokyo to hold the Japanese accountable.)

Ever heard of the trial that never was, concerning Jeff Davis? Oh yes, they cried they would hang Jeff from a sour apple tree. They would show the world what Yankees do to 'traitors'. Then they shit all over themselves.

Nope, Andrew Johnson's big goal in life was to not hold anyone accountable for the war. It's why he's considered one of the worst presidents. He pretty much lost the peace after Lincoln won the war.

So, tell me about the trial of Jeff Davis, the most hated man in Yankee land. Do you know anything about it? I doubt it. Go ahead and google and get what you can. Then get back with me with your uninformed position. Unless your scared.

they didn't put him on trial that was the point. Nor Lee, nor Stephens, nor any of the other traitors.

 

[JoeB131]

None other than Dr. James G. Randall, one of the leading Lincoln and Civil War historians of the 20th century, said this about McClellan and the Radical Republicans:

Guy, are you ******* serious? McClellan was what a general should never be. TIMID. He had an overwhelming advantage over the South, and he dithered around Virginia for years, most because being a slave-owning POS himself, he didn't want to kill other Slave-owning POS.