Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

One more time:
War Department, Washington, April 15, 1861. To His Excellency the Governor of Virginia: Sir: Under the act of Congress for calling forth "militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions, etc.," approved February 28, 1795, I have the honor to request your Excellency to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of your State the quota designated in the table below, to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged. Your Excellency will please communicate to me the time, at or about, which your quota will be expected at its rendezvous, as it will be met as soon as practicable by an officer to muster it into the service and pay of the United States.

— Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.



Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.

— Respectfully, John Letcher

VA, NC, TN, AR left the union after the call for troops.

No. We just wish America had not been ruined by the greed of tyrants.

Answering a question with a question.

You gave 4ager crap for having nothing, I guess this is your moment in the limeylight....

Does that matter constitutionally speaking? Are you alleging that for you, like the communists, and any other lawless regime in the history of the world, that the ends justify the means?

..and they weren't the ones systematically lynching those who disagreed with secession either...

..but they WERE the ones fighting for a Constitution that enshrined slavery...

...or were they unaware of that fact?

Yep

Answer the question and "school" me on History.

the disservice is the fact that there are memorials and movies that dont actually represent lincoln, they represent the good, not the bad. So if the south had accepted the corwin amendment, i guess lincolns greatness woulve never been known? Slavery wouldve gone on and lincoln wouldnt be known as the great emancipator but the union wouldve stayed in tact.

So this all goes back to the battle flag, some say it stands for slavery, well so did lincoln depending on what year it was


The disservice being done in the south to our flag and monuments currently outweighs anything ive said about lincoln....and thats my point, lincoln wouldnt be near as popular had history taught everything were talking about here....
im not so sure the people wanting our confederate monumnets would love lincoln had he preserved the union by getting the corwin amendment accepted into the 13th amendment

Quit avoiding the question.

Anyhow, you forgot George Washington and the rest of Founding Fathers....

Speaking of avoiding questions:

I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?

Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?



I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me.

If he can.

Of course, I wish it had divided. I thought that was clear.

So, now, how does that matter constitutionally speaking?

As for George Washington and the others, your attempts are pretty childish at best. The right of revolution once the consent of the governed is withdrawn is the very basis of America. But then again, if you don't know that...

I still want someone to answer where Lincoln got his constitutional authority to use force to preserve the Union?

Where does the Constitution say the POTUS may do that?



I was so hoping Birdwatcher would answer this for me.

What's the matter? The Constitution got you by the tongue?

Does any of this matter?

The American Civil War ended in June 1865, just over 150 years ago.

It's over, done, can't get a mulligan and do it over with 20/20 hindsight.

Why not expend your energy on something that you might actually be able to influence?

You mean like you avoided hillbillybear's?

What does that have to do with whether the flag in question represents slavery as opposed to warring against tyranny?

Oh, it's pretty clear where he stands. Lawlessness by those in power is fine and dandy as long as they are in favor of an end that he finds morally good. That is his answer. He has admitted as much with that question.

It matters because you have to have an understanding of history to get why things are today as they are. You can't worship Lincoln and curse Obama. They are the same. They both see something they think needs done and they are doing it, regardless of the constitution or the law.

And more importantly, the actions of Lincoln directly paved the was for Obama. If Lincoln hadn't settled the issue of states' rights and secession by force of arms, one essential check on the power of the federal government would not be in the dustbin of history.

Lincoln was a tool of the industrialists and the bankers. He delivered this republic gift wrapped into their greedy hands. He enslaved us all, ostensibly to free the slaves.

I'll fly what I want, say what I want and do what I want.

I don't give a flying sh*t what the goobermint thinks up.

Well said sir. This was exactly how we started down the road to the mess we're in.

I've previously said Lincoln was evil. I should probably back up on that. He probably believed he was doing what was best for the country. That said, if we were to be a nation of laws, then we can't break them in order to achieve even a noble end.

Once Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Republic was over. It mattered not that he didn't intend to end the Republic. It mattered not that he did it to fight corruption in Rome or that his personal survival left him no choice. That single act led to his dictatorship and the eventual ascension of his adopted son, Augustus. And it was under Augustus that every single meaningful power of the Republic was concentrated under the rule of one man.

That is sort of where were are today. Lincoln was Caesar and Obama is his spiritual heir. He grasps power and holds it using the same powers and precedents Lincoln initiated. Would Lincoln approve? I don't know and it doesn't matter. A father might not approve of his child, but he can never completely absolve himself of responsibility for his raising.