Knights' Gold . . . 5,000 Gold Coins . . . Largest KGC Treasure Ever Discovered

[Old Bookaroo]

ECS: You try to prove your point by repeating your premise.

I haven't speculated on motivations. I've confined myself to the fact of the matter. You, on the other hand, have tried to justify and explain actions with pejorative terms such as "aggressors" and the like. Sign of a weak position to start with.

I am fully prepared to make judgments on actions such as beating to death captured wounded soldiers. It's wrong. Period. Ce n'est pas la guerre.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

Well, if you can pass judgement on the motivations of those under the conditions of war and occupation of 150 years ago, Old Bookaroo, you're a better man than I.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

ECS: Once again - I don't concern myself with motivations. Although that is what you judged when you asked others to "take into account" the actions of Union troops when viewing the atrocities of the Confederate soldiers. Many of the Union soldiers, I'm sure, were former slaves. They probably were a bit bitter.

I'll judge actions. Again - slaughtering wounded prisoners of war (or any other kind of prisoner, for that matter) is wrong. It was wrong 150 years ago and it will be wrong 150 years from now. If troops fighting a war fail to live up to their own moral standards, if they take the easy way and simply adopt the actions of their enemy which they know to be wrong, then what is the difference between the two?

As for "occupation" - again, you use your premise to justify your conclusion. I agree with President Lincoln. Secession was a legal impossibility. The Southern states never left the Union.

Have you seen the movie about The Free State of Jones? It is Hollywood fiction, of course. But it does raise a very interesting issue (one that President Lincoln pointed out). What was to prevent Mississippi from leaving the CSA? And what was to prevent Jackson or Oxford from leaving Mississippi? Where does the division end - with one's own home?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[etex]

If succession is illegal there is no West Virginia

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Well, there's a North and South Carolina and a North and South Dakota. Why shouldn't there be a West Virginia? Many states were formed from much larger territories. Wasn't Oklahoma once part of Texas?

West Virginia never tried to leave the Union. Your question isn't relevant to the attempted breakup of the United States.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[etex]

Virginia never gave them permission to leave. Your answer isn't relevant to the question.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

etex: Your post proves the point I made to ECS - where does it end? At the time Virginia claimed to not be in the Union. It hadn't asked permission to leave. It just claimed to have gone.

So West Virginia split itself from Virginia. Why ask permission? Based on Virginia's own actions it wasn't necessary.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[etex]

That's called succession, thanks for proving my point, appreciate it

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Nope. I didn't prove your point. The fact that I am able to follow someone else's logic doesn't mean I agree with it. Empathy isn't agreement.

As for consent - see Virginia v. West Virginia (1871). It's settled law.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[etex]

Sure the US govt. and courts would agree with the Radical Republicans in charge. If there was no succession why did they require the southern states to be readmiited after the war. How can you be readmitted if you didn't leave.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

etex: You don't have to agree with any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. As a loyal citizen, all you have to do is follow it.

The Court ruled consent was granted. That's the end of it - along with some 150 or so years of history to back it up.

As I'm sure you know, President Lincoln agreed with you. He did not think the Southern states had to apply to be readmitted.

Unfortunately, John Wilkes Booth put paid to that.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[ECS]

ECS: Once again - I don't concern myself with motivations. Although that is what you judged when you asked others to "take into account" the actions of Union troops when viewing the atrocities of the Confederate soldiers. Many of the Union soldiers, I'm sure, were former slaves. They probably were a bit bitter.

I'll judge actions. Again - slaughtering wounded prisoners of war (or any other kind of prisoner, for that matter) is wrong. It was wrong 150 years ago and it will be wrong 150 years from now. If troops fighting a war fail to live up to their own moral standards, if they take the easy way and simply adopt the actions of their enemy which they know to be wrong, then what is the difference between the two?

As for "occupation" - again, you use your premise to justify your conclusion...

One must remember, it was their land that was invaded and occupied, and they were defending their property from the invaders.
I reckon you would do the same under the same conditions. In the heat of battle when the fly and one sees his friends killed, blood spattered fueled emotions do not foster a what's right, what's wrong in the heat of battle or its aftermath.
You ask what is the difference between the two?
Do you think during Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina that the Yankee soldiers passed out candy bars and puppies to the Southern children and handed out apples to the civilians who farms were looted and burned?
I believe the quote is "WAR IS HELL" was coined by a Union general who proved that point.

What about how the Southern civilians were legally mistreated during RECONSTRUCTION by the Federal government?
How does that fit with your "moral standards" judgement?
Is that more of your Union north good, Confederate south bad judgemental logic?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

ECS: Again, you use your premise to prove your conclusion. The South was neither invaded or occupied. The United States military is free to move throughout the United States. The Federal government is obligated to carry out its functions and duties throughout the United States.

Rest assured - if I were ever in a war, I would not be beating wounded soldiers to death. You again attempt to justify wrongs by pointing out other people did something wrong. That is not a mature argument.

Your final sentence is nonsense. Everyone is welcome to read my previous posts and see you are completely mistaken.

Actions in the pasts are subject to judgment today. The final charge ordered by Gen. U.S. Grant at Cold Harbor was a horrible mistake. Fact. Who agrees with me? Gen. U.S. Grant. Col. Custer shouldn't have taken on the Sioux nation and its allies with 200 troopers from the 7th Calvary and his little brother Boston, on summer vacation from Harvard College.

I have my eye on one of the Great Courses - military blunders. If we don't determine they are blunders, what is the course based on? How can we learn from the mistakes of history if we fail to determine they were mistakes?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[ECS]

Your premise that the South was neither invaded or occupied is flawed revisionist history.
The Confederate States of America was acknowledged as an country independent from the United States by several nations, including the United States under Lincoln.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

ECS:

The fact that other nations recognized the CSA as an independent country makes no difference. Although it appears that never happened:

Recognition of the Confederacy - 1861-1865
Introduction
One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government. Although this success can be attributed to the skill of Northern diplomats, the anti-slavery sentiments of the European populace, and European diversion to crises in Poland and Denmark, the most important factor stills rises from the battlefields on American soil. The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/confederacy

For some reason you are interested in re-fighting a war that has been over for a century and a half. If the issues aren't settled after the peace is signed, that rather takes the point out of it.

I don't consider World War I to have been worth the cost in blood and treasure.

You question my ability to judge events in the past - yet you are confident to predict the future.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[ECS]

ECS: ... The South was neither invaded or occupied. The United States military is free to move throughout the United States. The Federal government is obligated to carry out its functions and duties throughout the United States...

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS !

 

[ECS]

ECS:
You question my ability to judge events in the past - yet you are confident to predict the future.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo

To what prediction do you refer?
I believe you have me confused with some soothsayer with whom you also disagree.
You need to relax with a cup of hot chicory coffee and a bowl of hog jowls, black eyed peas, and rice and welcome in the New Year.

 

[ECS]

Sure the US govt. and courts would agree with the Radical Republicans in charge. If there was no succession why did they require the southern states to be readmiited after the war. How can you be readmitted if you didn't leave.

If there was no succession why were the BILL OF RIGHTS under the US CONSTITUTION for the citizens of the SOUTH ignored by the invading Northern Aggressors?
If there was no succession why were those who served the Confederacy denied the right to vote during RECONSTRUCTION?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Your prediction: "I reckon you would do the same under the same conditions."

I have my chicory coffee in New Orleans (with a beignet, of course!) at Cafe Du Monde. Just doesn't taste the same anywhere else.

For New Years we always have red beans and rice - with black-eyed peas for luck.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[ECS]

ECS:
Rest assured - if I were ever in a war, I would not be beating wounded soldiers to death...

One never knows how they will react once the first bullet flies as platitudes change at the commencement of the fighting.