Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Today is Nathan Bedford Forrest Day. July 13th.

Excellent post.

And yet today some people want to keep the enmity alive, even though it was long ago and we were not involved.

Southerners are fugking hilarious.

I think it was James Carville who said that central rural PA is actually Lower Alabama...
I think it is true!
Except that the demographic of central rural PA is nearly 99 percent white.
At least it seems that way to me! Ha!

I agree!
Lee's letter to Lord Acton was prophetic. The death of the 10th amendment was the death of the American experiment, and the birth of... despotism at home, aggression abroad.
Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists... a must read. Really shocked me!

This is such an excellent post it is worthy of quoting twice.
If anybody can document a "mainstream" conservative" talking head or elected official staking his life and career on the 10th amendment or Lee's letter to Acton please let me know. I never hear the argument made. Never. Trump called Lincoln a great Statesman. (!)

The only people who invoke such core principles are radicals not welcome in polite (pc) society.

A few things after reading most of this thread. Mostly personal opinion and likely worth what you'll pay for it.

-Sherman didn't hate Forrest after the war. He even recommended him to lead military action in Cuba sometime after the war. During the war, he would have gladly seen him hanging on the end of a rope or the end of his saber, but I'm still not sure "hate" played into it with Sherman.

Sherman was a different individual. Burning the South was a mean to end the war. Most on this site are all about incinerating an enemy (like we should have done North Vietnam) to bring wars to a swift end, yet some still condemn Sherman for doing what he could (bring misery upon the Southern populace) to end the war. He wasn't going to try to be fair or civilized about it from the get go. The day the war ended, it seems Sherman hung up his animosity along with his saber (if you do much further reading).

-The Battle of Ft. Pillow was a military route. A Southern victory in a theatre where Southern victories were few and far between (and usually involved Forrest). The "massacre" part was Union propaganda B.S. then and Leftist propaganda B.S. now.

Forrest told them to surrender or every man of them would be put to the sword (his usual ultimatum). Yankees kept shooting. They were put to the sword. Maybe some Yankee West Point grad on here can tell me how that's a war crime.

-150 years later and some in the South keep trying to fight the Civil War (like there was anything good about it), and snowflakes keep being snowflakes. This ain't the first time the left has had it's pink panties in a wad over the good General.

-The country was going to split either way. Lincoln could let it split, or try to keep it together. He chose the latter. He wound up with a war he decided to try to win. Yes, the country lost liberties we've not gained back since. That started with the Whiskey Rebellion and has continued through 9-11. Seems to go along with having a government.

Lincoln was not and could not have been a Bolshevik
“The Bolsheviks, also known in English as the Bolshevists, were a faction founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov that split from the Menshevik faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party at its Second Party Congress in 1903.”

Yet some on these pages have called him that...

And what so many of you haven’t figured out is that it is better to lose your country than your liberties. Your government exists to maintain your liberties. When it doesn’t do that, it is literally worse than useless.

In a technical sense true... but ...
The 1848 socialist revolutionaries fled Europe, especially German states and made their way to America and Lincoln gave them commissions. See bio of Carl Schurz. They were Marxists.

Craig S. Lerner
George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty
Date Written: May 2004
Abstract
Daniel Farber’s Lincoln’s Constitution is framed around two broad issues: First, did the South have the right--either under the Constitution or some higher law--to secede; or, as Lincoln argued, is “perpetuity . . . implied . . . in the fundamental law of all national governments”? Second, were Lincoln's actions to preserve the Union consistent with the Constitution; or did he exceed the powers delegated to him as the chief executive?

Farber in large part defends Lincoln’s acts as President. He writes, “It was Lincoln's character--his ability, judgment, courage, and humanity--that brought the Union through the war with the Constitution intact.”
But this assumes that Lincoln saved the Constitution, rather than destroyed it. If the Constitution was originally a voluntary association of separate sovereigns, then he illegally engrossed the nation in a war that claimed over six hundred thousand lives. We may add violations of civil liberties to his sins, although at that point it would be hard to plunge his reputation any farther into disgrace.
On the other hand, if Lincoln was right that the Constitution foreclosed secession and authorized the use of force to suppress any such movement, the entire problem of civil liberties needs to be re-gauged.

The Review concludes that the Founders did not regard secession as a constitutional right, but also that they could not have imagined that the federal government under the Constitution they had created would be so strong and so motivated as to prevent one-third of the states from withdrawing and reconstituting a government. Lincoln himself anticipated that a Union victory in the Civil War would give rise to a “new birth of freedom,” and he essentially cast himself in the role of a founder.

The principles on which the Lincolnian regime were to be founded were not identical to those of the original regime, for most importantly the scourge of slavery would be eliminated.
In this respect, as well as in laying the framework for a decisive shift in the relative power of the state and Federal Governments, it is perhaps not quite correct to say, as Farber does, that Lincoln “saved” the Constitution: he transformed it.

Who is Craig Lerner and why should I give his opinion any consideration?

We've moved on.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

It's totally obvious that the Founding Fathers recognized that occasionally it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.

The American Revolution was an act of secession.

The Declaration of Independence preceded the Constitution by a bit of time

Absolutely.

And Virginia ratified with the declared right to withdraw later if need be.

So what's your point?

The Constitution says that man's rights come from God.

Di Abraham Lincoln believe that he had taken the place of God?

My we are sensitive today

Around here, we all refer to it as Pennsyltucky! fits as well as anything else. It ain't just central PA. Anyplace that ain't a city, rural PA, NJ, NY. You'll find us country boys anywhere. I bet Jamesjr or any of the "southerners" would fit right in here. The only prerequisite I can think of is a love of guns, hunting, beer, and God!
I think JoeBob has nailed it. He's got a pretty good grasp, other than calling me a Yankee!
7mm

The Virginia Ratification (Federal) Convention made a final vote on George Wythe's motion to ratify, passing it 89 to 79. Virginians reserved the right to withdraw from the new government as "the People of the United States", "whenever the powers granted unto it should be perverted to their injury or oppression," but it also held that failings in the Constitution should be remedied by amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Ratifying_Convention