[miket156]

Grant was a lieutenant general (3 star), the first to hold that rank since George Washington. In 1866 Grant also facilitated Pickett's return to the U.S. from Canada without the latter's being tried for the war crime of executing North Carolina militia members for desertion, who had never sworn allegiance to the Confederacy.

Grant was a Lt General during the Civil War. When the war was over he was promoted to 4 star (full) general, another first. He took Winfield Scott's place as the highest ranking officer in the US Army. General Lee was given command of Confederate forces but wore a Confederate Colonial's Uniform.

Mike T.

 

[[email protected]]

Mike I agree. The fire power that the Army alone could bring is substantial and would bring disaster to anyone fighting them. Sadly the Army I knew for 21 years and left 20 years ago is not the Army of today. I believe they'd fire on civilians in a heartbeat, I don't trust them to do otherwise. This is the America of today.

I agree 100%.
This not the America that I love.
We are upside down. A smaller percentage is driving the larger percentage.
As for the military…..I really don’t know. I would like to believe they would not fire on civilians.

 

[Triggerfinger]

After reading a fair amount of books about why the war began here's my simplistic take on it:

The South was an agrarian society with little industry to complete against the more developed Nothern factories. It's main source of income was the growing of cotton and to make it a viable product about 6 percent of Southerners used slave as a cheap source of labor. The North saw this as a cash cow for Northern banks and taxed this export very heavily and most unfairly. Southerners rich and poor, slave holders and non-slave holder hated this collectively and elected their politicians to address these grievances.
The Southern politicians elected by the people were charged with addressing these wrongs in the Federal Government, but found their interests were not represented because they were out-numbered by their Northern constituents. To even that disparity, Southern Politicians advocated that each new state upon entering into the Union would be able a to maintain slaves. Since slave states were mostly Democrat the number of elected seats would be for Southern interests and legislation most beneficial to them. The North seeing this as the political move that it was, took a stance of wanting to abolish slavery and stemming the number elected Democratic representatives. This was of course not only a problem for the southern politicians, but more directly an issue of the large cotton growers in the South who could ill afford to lose the cheap labor offered by the slave system.
Lincolns election as President sealed a feeling that the common interests of the North and South could not be maintained and measures were to be taken to ensure the survival of the Southern prosperity and culture, that being secession. This South Carolina did, followed by other Southern states.
The people of the South were for the most part not aligned with leaving the Union until it became apparent that the US government was not going to doing anything to change the course of events, but worse they were putting the South in a position of initiating a war. The Norths actions provoked the South into doing something that most agreed was the worse thing it could do, fire the first shot. This the South did upon Sumpter. Lincoln then authorized the call up of 75, 000 soldiers to quell the rebellion by direct invasion of the Southern states. This by it's self was the main catalyst in motivating and thousands of Southerns to join the Confederacy and protect the homeland and the new Nation.

 

[miket156]

Triggerfinger

I Posted this early in this topic. It is worth reading.

To add to what really happened at Ft Sumter:

President Lincoln Dupes The Confederates
into Firing on Sumter ©

https://www.joeryancivilwar.com/Sesquicentennial-Monthly-Articles/April-1861/What-Happened-in-April-1861.html

Read for yourself what Lincoln did to shift the blame to South Carolina for starting the Civil War.

Mike T.

 

[Triggerfinger]

Thanks Mike, I'll have a read. Have you read this book?
Life in the Confederate Army by William Watson

Most interesting book I've read so far about the start of the war,

 

[miket156]

Triggerfinger:

No I have not read that book. My nephew mailed me a copy of GRANT, and I have yet to find the time to read it. Its about 2" thick and includes ALL of Grant's military history. I usually do my reading during cold weather months here in the NE US. Too much to do when the weather's nice.

Mike T.

 

[zuikowarrior]

There is also a move underway to rename the USS John C. Stennis nuclear carrier.

 

[miket156]

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 respectfully disagree. Back in the mid 18th Century, a soldier's FIRST obligation was to his native state, not to the Washington Government that once again is out of control and believe they can dictate to the peons because they think of us as Subjects. England made the same mistake and tried to use FORCE to get the Colonies to OBEY George III as SUBJECTS.

The States that Seceded from the Union did NOT leave the Union in order to DESTROY the United States. READ the Declaration of Independence. Each of the 13 Colonies are Independent Sovereign states. We ARE countries in and of ourselves and NOT to blindly follow the Washington DC government. That FACT is as important today as it was in the mid 19th. Century.

Mike T.

 

[OLSKOOL]

I agree 100%.
This not the America that I love.
We are upside down. A smaller percentage is driving the larger percentage.
As for the military…..I really don’t know. I would like to believe they would not fire on civilians.

they wouldn't fire on citizens? yea right! i asked a couple of weeks ago on this very forum if the cops here would obey their oath they took to the American people and not follow any orders that were given as to them trying to take our guns. they did not answer at all! so i got my answer! in fact i was told that was not a fair question! and i shouldn't ask it, oh it was fair! and needs to be asked! AND ANSWERED! it was just one that was uncomfortable. it is really sickening to think that the ones in government that is sworn to uphold our constitution may step on it as they are coming to kick your door in! and kill you and your family, just following orders,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Judson]

Prior to the Civil War, the United States of America was a plural noun, as in "The United States 'are' . . . ". After the war, the United States of America became a singular noun, as in "The United States 'is' . . . ".

 

[miket156]

Prior to the Civil War, the United States of America was a plural noun, as in "The United States 'are' . . . ". After the war, the United States of America became a singular noun, as in "The United States 'is' . . . ".

Some politicians dreamed this up to JUSTIFY The Washington government INVADING southern states and forcing them to submit to the Yankee Government in Washington DC at GUN POINT. It means nothing, That Statement does NOT undo the FACT that each of the 13 colonies are independent Sovereign States as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Period.

Mike T.

 

[duffus]

Real forts don't exist in the US anymore. I don't give a fort!

 

[black1970]

Why do you think Obama fired 200 generals? All were conservatives that would NOT FIRE on Americans. He wanted his own National Police Force. And now Sicko Joe has the FBI.

 

[miket156]

In addition, Obama got rid of veterans that were getting close to putting in their 20 and gave them the boot so they didn't have to pay them their retirement. The only President that is worse than Obama is now occupying the White House. I flush better human specimens down my toilet than either one of those two Traitors.

Mike T.

 

[Judson]

Some politicians dreamed this up to JUSTIFY The Washington government INVADING southern states and forcing them to submit to the Yankee Government in Washington DC at GUN POINT. It means nothing, That Statement does NOT undo the FACT that each of the 13 colonies are independent Sovereign States as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Period.

Mike T.

The status of the original 13 colonies has changed since the Declaration of Indepedence was written. The first attempt at a collective body politic (the Articles of Confederation) was deemed wanting, and the states themselves ceded a degree of “sovereignty“, as they put it in the Constitution‘s preamble,”in order to form a more perfect union.”

 

[miket156]

Judson

The State of South Carolina did NOT cede ANY of their Sovereignty to the Washington government. The State of South Caroline had extensive talks with the people selling the Constitution and told them point blank it was NOT going to be controlled by a large central government in Washington. There was an article as well as a video on this subject I read some years ago but I didn't save or keep track of it. South Carolina was the first state to leave the Union in December 1860. There were other factors, like 70 percent of the Tariff money was imposed on Southern states and SC had enough of the Washington Government. The continuing practice of Slavery was most certainly a big issue. South Caroline as a whole was not going to let Washington tell them how to run their state.

You can buy into the baloney of the states changing the status of the original 13 colonies, but I'm not buying it.

Mike T.