Marlin Firearms Forum banner
41 - 60 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Think you live in a "free" country? Try withdrawing from that country and starting one whose populace shares your values, be they right or wrong. Oh, yeah, that has already been tried. Hate it when folks start describing as "traitors" those willing to go to war and die for what they believed in. Would the name callers think me a"traitor" for wishing we could remove from office those members of both parties of our current federal government who seem hell-bent on placing this once glorious nation in the trash heap of history? What will we be called if the true traitors of today succeed? Maybe 'New China?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Negative, I don’t have a dog in this fight accept “all men are created equal”. Slavery should have ended with that. In most cases the military folks sided with there states. This is a republic, we as citizens lost a lot of freedoms since that war ended. The federal government is now into every thing not covered under the original bill of rights, Constitution and amendments. The courts in a lot of cases did not uphold there sworn duty to protect the above. Case in point the 15th Amendment is clearly not constitutional.
AGREE, You are spot on....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,622 Posts
Think you live in a "free" country? Try withdrawing from that country and starting one whose populace shares your values, be they right or wrong. Oh, yeah, that has already been tried. Hate it when folks start describing as "traitors" those willing to go to war and die for what they believed in. Would the name callers think me a"traitor" for wishing we could remove from office those members of both parties of our current federal government who seem hell-bent on placing this once glorious nation in the trash heap of history? What will we be called if the true traitors of today succeed? Maybe 'New China?"
Los Estados Mexicanos del Norte. Check the population growth stats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Negative, I don’t have a dog in this fight accept “all men are created equal”. Slavery should have ended with that. In most cases the military folks sided with there states. This is a republic, we as citizens lost a lot of freedoms since that war ended. The federal government is now into every thing not covered under the original bill of rights, Constitution and amendments. The courts in a lot of cases did not uphold there sworn duty to protect the above. Case in point the 15th Amendment is clearly not constitutional.
I agree that slavery should have ended with the initial ratification of the Constitution. However, it didn't and the founders made compromises to maintain the Union. Eventually, "all men are created equal" was affirmed more forcefully in the 13th through 15th and the 19th Amendments. The Civil War did result in a significant loss of states' rights. Though, I would opine that it took on a much more significantly accelerated pace with the Great Depression and the Cold War followed by the War on Terrorism.

That the federal government is so deeply involved in our daily lives I blame on the American people. Too many of them clamor for protection and safety asking the government, particularly the federal government to intervene whenever crime is committed, natural disasters happen, poverty strikes, etc. The perception of being protected from yourself and others gives the ability to blame someone or something else for your troubles. Unfortunately, when the people want the government to be accountable for their decisions, it's only reasonable to expect the government to want a say in their decisions. That, I believe, is how we have lost so many of our individual rights and freedoms. American citizens writ large gave them away in exchange for the promise of security - financial, physical, etc.

However, the 15th Amendment is clearly constitutional given that it is a duly ratified amendment to the Constitution.

The nation is the United States of America. The states are members of the republic. A military member becomes a guardian of the nation, not an individual state. Guarding an individual state is the role and function of the state militia. To be a member of the United States military and then turn and fight against the United States is sedition and treason.

Think you live in a "free" country? Try withdrawing from that country and starting one whose populace shares your values, be they right or wrong. Oh, yeah, that has already been tried. Hate it when folks start describing as "traitors" those willing to go to war and die for what they believed in. Would the name callers think me a"traitor" for wishing we could remove from office those members of both parties of our current federal government who seem hell-bent on placing this once glorious nation in the trash heap of history? What will we be called if the true traitors of today succeed? Maybe 'New China?"
No country is an absolutely "free" country. Absolute freedom is the ability to do anything I want without laws or rules governing my actions. For all of us to live that way would be anarchy. No society can exist, much less thrive, without laws or rules limiting our actions and freedoms. Do we live in a country with far more rights and freedoms than any other on this planet? Absolutely.

Can you withdraw from this country? Absolutely. And you can do it without papers or permission from the government. You are free to leave at any time and take up residence and citizenship elsewhere. Are you free to take land and territory from the USA to create your own country? No. You would need to convince the nation that is losing the territory and associated resources to cede it to you. You could offer to purchase it (i.e., Louisiana or Alaska purchases). Or, you could campaign and convince the citizenry to convince the government to cede it to you. (unlikely)

Can you wish to remove those presently serving in office? Absolutely, we get an opportunity to make progress in that direction every two years at the national level and at other periodicity at the local and state levels. If you mean remove them by force, no, you can't do that because it violates the very idea of law and order. If you can remove someone by force that you don't like, then why couldn't someone else with an opposing point of view do the same thing to you? This is exactly where the Confederacy ran afoul. They can be viewed as traitors and thieves attempting to steal territory and resources from the United States of America. Or, they could be viewed as people who saw themselves as being above the law and who sought to enforce their viewpoints through violence. In either case, their actions were dishonorable.

There are many things happening in the country today with which I disagree. But, the appropriate way to address them is through the electoral and legal process. It involves diplomacy, compromise, and a degree of civility. The alternative is the destruction not only of our Civil War but also the destruction and lack of opportunity present in so many countries that are still fighting their own civil wars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Renaming the military forts and removing statues that honor soldiers and leaders of the Confederate States of America does not re-write or change history. Nor do I believe that it halts the teaching of history. Instead, I believe that it teaches it more accurately. It does so by removing the places of honor given to those individuals. The history is still taught, but now it can be taught without trying to honor those that fought to destroy the United States of America.

I see two ways to look at it:
  • The leaders, especially the military leaders, took an oath to the United States of America. They benefited from their citizenship and the opportunities available to them as Americans. In 1861, they turned on their country. We do not erect statues of Benedict Arnold, even though he was a valiant patriot at first. He besmirched that when he betrayed America to the British. He was hanged for his treason and is remembered accordingly - no statues, street names, school names, etc. Generals Lee, Longstreet, Hood, Bragg, and many others are equally traitors and should not be given a place of honor.
  • The leaders of the Confederate States of America represented a nation that was antagonist towards and fought a war against the United States of America. We do not build statues or name schools, bases, etc for Lord Cornwallis, Field Marshal Rommel, Admiral Hiromoto, or any other individual or group that has waged war against the United States of America. We should not do so for anyone of the Confederate States of America, either.

History should be studied and remembered, lest we forget the lessons of history. The military and political history of the Civil War should be taught. Both sides had valiant, dedicated, and talented leaders and individuals; but, the same is true of every conflict that has involved the USA. Monuments and statues depicting that history are appropriate in the state and national parks that preserve the history by preserving the battlefields and significant locations. However, in America, we name bases, streets, schools, and parks as a way of conferring honor on an individual or a group. Statues and monuments built in city parks, government buildings, and other public places are also constructed to honor the individual or group. Removing the names of Confederate individuals from bases, schools, streets, etc and removing their statues from places of honor does not rewrite history. It does, however, place those individuals into the position of dishonor where they belong.
I'm going to leave this here for you. The government got 70+ percent of its taxes from the ports in the southern states. There was no call to end slavery at the onset of the war. The government sent troops into the states to use force against them to remain in the Union. It is very probable that the greatest Generals of the Union army would be looked upon as war criminals if the war would have went the other way. And I am from Georgia! They were war criminals. Their brutality toward so called freed slaves showed how they felt about them. Maybe instead of looking at the war only, perhaps look at what happened in the following 80 years in the South. And then you will find why all of those bases were named for Southern Generals. This country has always needed southerners to fight.

Sent from my KFKAWI using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
wilsonkemp790 is right. A few posters on here need to live in China or Russia for a while as one of their citizens and see how they like it. No Marlins for you. And BTW the only History you will read is what you are told to read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I'm going to leave this here for you. The government got 70+ percent of its taxes from the ports in the southern states. There was no call to end slavery at the onset of the war. The government sent troops into the states to use force against them to remain in the Union. It is very probable that the greatest Generals of the Union army would be looked upon as war criminals if the war would have went the other way. And I am from Georgia! They were war criminals. Their brutality toward so called freed slaves showed how they felt about them. Maybe instead of looking at the war only, perhaps look at what happened in the following 80 years in the South. And then you will find why all of those bases were named for Southern Generals. This country has always needed southerners to fight.

Sent from my KFKAWI using Tapatalk
Several untruths here. There were many calls to abolish slavery at the time that Pres. Lincoln was elected. John Brown had already conducted his raid. The Underground Railroad had widespread support in the Northern states. The movement was strong enough to provide the impetus for the Confederate states to secede. Every document written by Jefferson Davis and his colleagues in the run-up to Pres. Lincoln's election and inauguration were a panicked concern that he would abolish slavery. He had no intention of doing so at the onset of his presidency because preserving the Union was more important to him. But, the calls to do so were strong enough to concern the slave states.

Union troops were sent into the Confederacy because they fired the first shots at Ft Sumter. Once Pres Lincoln found a general that knew how to put a boot on the enemy's throat and keep it there, then the Union troops entered the CSA and didn't leave. They destroyed what was in front of them because that is how wars are waged. Wars are not tennis matches or gentlemanly affairs. They are bloody and ugly and require the destruction of the enemy's ability and desire to continue fighting. Frequently, the designation of a war criminal has more to do with who is the victor than the actions of the accused.

The statues and names of bases were part of the reconciliation efforts. It was done to allow the southern states to save face and appease their pride. This is the same reason none of them were head fully accountable for treason or sedition. The following years of segregation were particularly strong in the South because many of same individuals that had been slave owners and political leaders were allowed to remain political leaders. They made every effort possible to retain their privileged status.

America has needed all of its citizens to remain strong. The Southern states had more of a Tori leaning in the Revolution. They fought to preserve slavery in the Civil War. They also fought alongside Northern compatriots in the Mexican, Spanish-American, Vietnam, and Korean Wars as well as both World Wars and the conflicts in the Middle East. Yes, the country needs southerners to fight, but it has never relied wholly on them. They are and should be part of a larger whole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,922 Posts
Several untruths here. There were many calls to abolish slavery at the time that Pres. Lincoln was elected. John Brown had already conducted his raid. The Underground Railroad had widespread support in the Northern states. The movement was strong enough to provide the impetus for the Confederate states to secede. Every document written by Jefferson Davis and his colleagues in the run-up to Pres. Lincoln's election and inauguration were a panicked concern that he would abolish slavery. He had no intention of doing so at the onset of his presidency because preserving the Union was more important to him. But, the calls to do so were strong enough to concern the slave states.

Union troops were sent into the Confederacy because they fired the first shots at Ft Sumter. Once Pres Lincoln found a general that knew how to put a boot on the enemy's throat and keep it there, then the Union troops entered the CSA and didn't leave. They destroyed what was in front of them because that is how wars are waged. Wars are not tennis matches or gentlemanly affairs. They are bloody and ugly and require the destruction of the enemy's ability and desire to continue fighting. Frequently, the designation of a war criminal has more to do with who is the victor than the actions of the accused.

The statues and names of bases were part of the reconciliation efforts. It was done to allow the southern states to save face and appease their pride. This is the same reason none of them were head fully accountable for treason or sedition. The following years of segregation were particularly strong in the South because many of same individuals that had been slave owners and political leaders were allowed to remain political leaders. They made every effort possible to retain their privileged status.

America has needed all of its citizens to remain strong. The Southern states had more of a Tori leaning in the Revolution. They fought to preserve slavery in the Civil War. They also fought alongside Northern compatriots in the Mexican, Spanish-American, Vietnam, and Korean Wars as well as both World Wars and the conflicts in the Middle East. Yes, the country needs southerners to fight, but it has never relied wholly on them. They are and should be part of a larger whole.
Your Posts are Yankee propaganda and are NOT accurate. You are NOT looking at both sides of the story. My brother had a Master's Degree in History and I majored in History. We had many long discussions about the Civil War. The Cotton States believed they had a RIGHT to leave the union. The State of South Carolina demanded that Union Troops LEAVE South Carolina peacefully but Major Anderson, who was in command of union troops in Charleston, moved his forces from a Fort at the mouth of Charleston Harbor to Fort Sumter in the middle of the night instead of remaining on the coast where they had been stationed. The Governor of SC said what Major Anderson did was an ACT OF Aggression and demanded that Ft. Sumter surrender. Anderson would not comply, so Confederate forces opened fire on Ft. Sumter.

President Lincoln called for Volunteers to INVADE the cotton states and had planned to move union forces through Virginia. The Virginian Legislature objected to Lincoln's invasion and Seceded from the Union. Both sides were at fault, and I find your revisionist history one sided and inaccurate.

FYI. Both my brother and me were born and raised in PA and both of us served in the US Army.

Mike T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Miket156 is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,922 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I didn't argue that Miket156 wasn't correct regarding the tactical actions that resulted in the opening shots of the Civil War. However, he failed to identify what in my statements was "Yankee propaganda".

The idea that a state has the right to secede is misguided. Part of joining the United States was agreeing not to seek secession in the future. For most of the Cotton States, that occurred when they ratified the Constitution. South Carolina had no authority to demand the removal of federal forces from the state so long as it was a state within the United States of America. It only had grounds for such a demand if it were a part of a nation other than the United States of America, in this case the Confederate States of America. South Carolina was a founding member of the CSA, which was formed approximately two months prior to the BrigGen Beaureguard's actions. So, South Carolina's demands were made on the basis of USA troops being on "foreign" soil, i.e., CSA soil. Their demands were made without the CSA being recognized by anyone outside of the Cotton States as a legitimate nation. This was especially true of the nation from which they sought to break in violation of their ratification of the Constitution. Their demands were also made with the intention to provoke conflict as they knew that Pres. Lincoln would not comply with those demands.

In essence, this only reinforces my original position. My position from my first post was that I agree with renaming the bases and removing the statues of Confederate leaders. They can be viewed as either traitors (in the worst case) or as enemy combatants (in the best case). In neither instance does America have the tradition of placing either category of individuals in places of honor or repute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,922 Posts
Other issues I would like to add: Have you ever wondered WHY Jefferson Davis was not Tried for Treason after he was captured and locked up in Prison? Jefferson Davis told the Washington government that Southern states had a RIGHT to leave the Union. He ASKED for the opportunity to PROVE IT in Court. The Washington government decided to give Davis Bail and set him Free. NO TRIAL.

President Lincoln had said after LEE Surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia that there would be NO HANGINGS and no Retribution against Southern leaders and Southern solders provided they did not take up Arms against the Union Forces again.

After Lincoln was assassinated and that drunken piece of garbage Andrew Johnson was president, he wanted Robert E LEE tried for Treason. Take a wild guess who stepped forward to Lee's Defense?
General Grant, by then a 4 star general and still in command of the US Army. He told Johnson that if he brought up charges of Treason against Lee, Johnson would be violating the terms of Lee's Surrender. Specifically. ALL soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia were give Paroles and were allowed to go home after swearing allegence to the US, not take up arms against the US and obey the Laws where they lived once they got home. ALL Confederate solders were given printed Paroles before they left for home. It took 3 days after the surrender for all those Paroles to be printed and they could return home. If Johnson tried to bring Charges of Treason against LEE, General Grand would RESIGN. That put a stop to Johnson's Tyranny.

Mike T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Several untruths here. There were many calls to abolish slavery at the time that Pres. Lincoln was elected. John Brown had already conducted his raid. The Underground Railroad had widespread support in the Northern states. The movement was strong enough to provide the impetus for the Confederate states to secede. Every document written by Jefferson Davis and his colleagues in the run-up to Pres. Lincoln's election and inauguration were a panicked concern that he would abolish slavery. He had no intention of doing so at the onset of his presidency because preserving the Union was more important to him. But, the calls to do so were strong enough to concern the slave states.

Union troops were sent into the Confederacy because they fired the first shots at Ft Sumter. Once Pres Lincoln found a general that knew how to put a boot on the enemy's throat and keep it there, then the Union troops entered the CSA and didn't leave. They destroyed what was in front of them because that is how wars are waged. Wars are not tennis matches or gentlemanly affairs. They are bloody and ugly and require the destruction of the enemy's ability and desire to continue fighting. Frequently, the designation of a war criminal has more to do with who is the victor than the actions of the accused.

The statues and names of bases were part of the reconciliation efforts. It was done to allow the southern states to save face and appease their pride. This is the same reason none of them were head fully accountable for treason or sedition. The following years of segregation were particularly strong in the South because many of same individuals that had been slave owners and political leaders were allowed to remain political leaders. They made every effort possible to retain their privileged status.

America has needed all of its citizens to remain strong. The Southern states had more of a Tori leaning in the Revolution. They fought to preserve slavery in the Civil War. They also fought alongside Northern compatriots in the Mexican, Spanish-American, Vietnam, and Korean Wars as well as both World Wars and the conflicts in the Middle East. Yes, the country needs southerners to fight, but it has never relied wholly on them. They are and should be part of a larger whole.
There is absolutely nothing that I stated that is untrue. We can debate this until we are both blue in the face, but for you to say that what I have said is untrue, is an utter falsehood. You have to realize that the reason no one was held for treason is that the states did have the right to leave. This is shown by the fact that they had to be 're--admitted' by force again, of course. But your statement that the south had started it is also false. The government was told many times to leave Fort Sumpter. They ignored the deadlines and baited the south to fire upon the fort. This is true, show me where I am wrong. Tell me how today's military is is balanced. There is a higher membership in the military that hail from the original confederate states than any other region in the country. That was not always the case prior to the WWII . Why was Joe Wheeler given such a lofty position over the volunteers during the Spanish American war? Yes I will give you the fact that naming the forts was an appeasement to the southern states but that was earned by those brave soldiers. Have you ever seen the battle steamers on the flags? Have you really looked at them? The Gray and Blue ones represent the southern victories. Don't believe it? Check it out. You had no retort to the actions during the war by Grant and Sherman. I live in the hometown of General Longstreet and he considered Grant to be one if his closest friends. The calls to end slavery were very small considering, very few black people lived in the north. You are believing total revisionist history. Oh, and by the way Jim Crow law were very common though out the north after the war. Prove to me any thing I said is false before calling me a liar.

Sent from my KFKAWI using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,922 Posts
Philipat

I suggest you follow the Link I provided that clearly shows that Lincoln and the Washington Government conspired against South Carolina to get them to fire the shots against Fort Sumter in order to blame them for starting the war.

You are spinning Yankee Propaganda because you previously Posted that Lincoln sent troops into the southern states because South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. Lincoln was trying to reinforce Sumter with 200 more men and supplies, and South Carolina had Seceded from the union and wanted all union troops out of THEIR State. South Carolina counldn't care less if any other country recogized South Carolina's independence. Who cares? South Carolina was free to leave.

There is nothing in the original Constitution that I know of that states once an individual state joins the Union, it cannot leave. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the 13 colonies were all independent Sovereign states. Period. The Declaration of Independence came along before the Constitution and established each state's Sovereignty. I do believe you are shooting blanks.

Mike T.
 
  • Like
Reactions: utvolsfan77

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Other issues I would like to add: Have you ever wondered WHY Jefferson Davis was not Tried for Treason after he was captured and locked up in Prison? Jefferson Davis told the Washington government that Southern states had a RIGHT to leave the Union. He ASKED for the opportunity to PROVE IT in Court. The Washington government decided to give Davis Bail and set him Free. NO TRIAL.

President Lincoln had said after LEE Surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia that there would be NO HANGINGS and no Retribution against Southern leaders and Southern solders provided they did not take up Arms against the Union Forces again.
No, I didn't wonder. I already knew that he asked for a trial and was released instead. I believe that there are two possible reasons for this. The first is that the federal government may have felt it was on shaky ground trying to argue against him. The second is that the federal government determined that, if there were to be no hangings or retributions, then there was little justification for the expense of conducting a trial. I don't have any documentation to support or refute either of those two reasons. But, in the broader sense, the action of releasing him was in line with Pres Lincoln's policy of reconciliation.

After Lincoln was assassinated and that drunken piece of garbage Andrew Johnson was president, he wanted Robert E LEE tried for Treason. Take a wild guess who stepped forward to Lee's Defense?
General Grant, by then a 4 star general and still in command of the US Army. He told Johnson that if he brought up charges of Treason against Lee, Johnson would be violating the terms of Lee's Surrender. Specifically. ALL soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia were give Paroles and were allowed to go home after swearing allegence to the US, not take up arms against the US and obey the Laws where they lived once they got home. ALL Confederate solders were given printed Paroles before they left for home. It took 3 days after the surrender for all those Paroles to be printed and they could return home. If Johnson tried to bring Charges of Treason against LEE, General Grand would RESIGN. That put a stop to Johnson's Tyranny.

Mike T.
True.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,922 Posts
It is well that we can have a civil discussion concerning the Civil War. There was blame on bother sides. Mr Lincoln said so himself. His assassination was the worst thing that could have happened for the country. Johnson couldn't even stay sober to be sworn in as Vice President. There were plenty of Fire breathers in South Carolina that hated Yankees. It was not a good time for the country.

I'm not in favor of re-naming forts or taking down Statues. Its the Marxists destroying our heritage, which includes the Civil War. Democrat-Marxists control cities and get away with changing street names, taking down statues, de-funding police, and releasing criminals back to the streets with a slap on the wrist

In PA there are a lot of Liberals-Marxists and other swamp Creatures in Philadelphia. Other areas Like Allentown, Easton, Scranton- Wilkes-Bare, Lancaster have similar people that are Left Wing. If you review the election results of PA you will find that the Cities vote for the Marxists and rural areas vote for Conservatives. Governor Tom Wolf is a Marxist puppet, baby killer Liberal that had Michele Obama campaign for him. I can't stand the sight of that phony. That moron shut down businesses for over 2 years, stating they were not critical businesses, he closed them with a stroke of his pen. 25 present of those small businesses closed permanently. Wolf said he will veto any anti baby killer legislation that comes across his desk. He's a murderer by proxy. A PIG.


Mike T.
 
  • Like
Reactions: utvolsfan77

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I believe it is those who proudly display the 'stars and bars' and protest the renaming of forts who are trying to ignore/ change history. Those Confederate soldiers committed treason against the United States of America. (Just as G. Washington committed treason against his sovereign King). That is the historical reality. The Commander in Chief PARDONED them. A pardon does not mean 'you did not do it.' The 'Stars and Bars' is a symbol of treason.
 
41 - 60 of 96 Posts
Top