Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Free State of Jones

The last week and a half we've been through Florida, Alabama, spent a couple nights in Mississippi and back at our temporary home base in southern Louisiana. We always enjoy our time spent amongst good people no matter where they reside and the south has a lot of them. Starting to look at houses along the southern coast of northern Florida, Alabama or Mississippi. Spending the summers in Alaska and winters in the south allows me a chance for year round fishing.

Did not the south fire upon northern troops who had withdrawn to fort Sumter.

We're not northern troops starving. Might it not have been wiser to give them some food negotiate with the union?

Nope, the South demanded surrender, then attacked.

Serious lack of wisdom. It Gave Lincoln a reason and forever undermines he claim of Northern Agression.

Fort Sumter was SC territory, not Fed territory based upon secession.

There were already Federal blockades against Southern ports and Federal ships firing upon Southern merchant vessels who were attempting to engage in legal commerce (Feds illegally were forcing Southern goods to go North and through Northern ports for the excise taxes). Some of those same Federal ships were off the SC coast and refused to come get the Fed troops at Sumter post secession. They were left there, against the lawful demands of SC, by the Feds who had means and opportunity to extract them.

Secession? Constitutional and legal. Slavery (abhorrent as it was)? Constitutional and legal. Federal actions against the secessionist states? Without Constitutional authority.

The only death at Sumpter was when Feds fired a salute and their cannon exploded, killing the gunner. The Feds had already surrendered the fort.

Still fired the first shot.

Nope. Federal blockade ships against lawful merchant vessels carry that distinction, even though the history books won't report it.

Still changes absolutely nothing about the Constitutionality of the Southern states actions vs the unconstitutional actions of the Feds.

Not so sure, I have yet to totally figure him out.

This alone is a start.

“Congratulations class of 2015,” he began. “Life’s not fair. It never was, isn’t now and won’t ever be. Do not fall into the entitled trap of feeling like you’re a victim. You are not.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...h-dont-be-entitled-you-are-not-a-victim/

Pretty good with that Chrystal ball, Mike! What's it say about November?

It seems about every year we get into this thing of slavery and it's part in causing the Civil War.
It's always been my belief that there were many causes in starting the war, but slavery was THE one cause that could not or would not be settled with out a war.
The original seven seceding states were states whose economies were grounded in slavery. That is undeniable.
But I myself do not believe war was the only answer to the question of secession . Lincoln used secession as an excuse to start the war. Instead of calling for negotiations for a peaceful settlement, Lincoln called for 75000 troops to put down a rebellion. Then he proceeded to skillfully maneuver the south into firing the opening shots, making them the aggressor, and giving himself unlimited support in the northern states.
Slavery, as an issue in the war, never came about until the war was nearly a year and a half old. Even then the issue was not settled until the war was over and the 13th amendment ending slavery, was forced on ALL the states. Even those remaining in the Union!
For the record, Ft Sumpter was a federally owned sight. The island and fort were built using federal money. South Carolina offered to buy of the government, but the offer was refused in order to enforce the tariffs.
The Confederate States were setting up a tariff free trade. This would have destroyed the Union economy. Lincoln needed the war in order to save northern banking and northern money. It really was a rich mans war!
7mm

I like Matther McConaughey and he is a very good actor.
But the reason this movie is being presented is because it is Politically Correct, and this is the reason I won't bother watching it.

White man deserts from the RACIST Confederate Army, shoots RACIST Confederate officer, causes his county to separate from his RACIST state, and he marries a Negro gal.

It all may be accurate history, I don't know, but it is so PC I can't stand it.

You want to make a film about a Southerner who was a real man and a warrior, you make a film about Nathan Bedford Forrest. Probably the greatest military commander on the Southern side. Unschooled military genius.

You will never see that film, because he was not only a RACIST slave-owner, he was also a RACIST slave-trader.
Even worse, he helped found the KKK.

Forrest's servants loved him too.

No, but there were no cities full of recent immigrants either.

There WAS massive non-compliance, especially as the war progressed, and brutal recriminations against those deemed insufficiently dedicated to the cause or suspected Unionist. If the movie is true to the tale that part oughtta come out. Suffice to say the Confederacy as a whole did NOT tolerate dissent. And if Lincoln imprisoned some Northerners without Habeus Corpus at least they weren't hung in droves for having the wrong opinion.



I believe it was popularly called the "Twenty Ni**er Rule", and was the source of much discontent.



Absolutely, IIRC starting in 1862, about a year (??) before the North reciprocated.



They believed they were fighting for their country, the Union, and were willing to die defending it, in droves. YMMV.

JMHO,
Birdwatcher

Weren't hard for the people in charge to do in this case. After all the South WAS seceding and the Union WAS falling apart.

Its not like they were fighting against the spread of Communism or fighting a war on drugs.



Pretty much like how Big Cotton bankrolled the Second Texas Revolution.

Birdwatcher

Knight is lying about 20 miles from me as I type this. I had lunch with a buddy and his wife a couple of days ago, she grew up right across from the graveyard where he's buried, not that it gives her (or me) any special insight into the situation. We were discussing it over lunch since they were planning on seeing the movie that night. Their thoughts, based upon local hand me down info, were that Newt Knight wasn't so much pro-union as he was anti-confederate. He didn't really care about the union cause but resented being drafted into the confederate cause because he "didn't have a dog in that fight". Jones county was a poor area and there weren't many slave owners, most were just poor dirt farmers and they didn't want to go to war for something that wasn't their fight. They just wanted to be left alone, something I'm sure most can relate to.

I haven't seen the movie yet and likely won't until it comes out on video. I can guess, given the current political environment, how it'll be portrayed.