• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

True American Hero

RE the use of violence against a state:

Madison's Notes:

The Writings, vol. 3 (1787) | Online Library of Liberty (libertyfund.org)


The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 3vols. | Online Library of Liberty (libertyfund.org)

Thursday May 311


"The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union,” being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union,” on motion of Dr. Franklin) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.


The last clause of Resolution 6, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.


Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected [56] on the use of force, the more he doubted, the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.—A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con.


The Committee then rose & the House Adjourned.1"

....


And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.


postponed.


Mr. E. Gerry thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.⚓✪


This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself."





FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1787.
 
Closer said:
Ridiculous and silly. What else would Lincoln want Sumter for? If left alone they would begin extracting duties from the shipping.
Click to expand...

.....Because it was US government property, and the Confederates opened fire on US soldiers.
 
Closer said:
It reverted back to the state that originally donated the land. The Federal troops were illegal squatters, and committing an act of war against Carolina.
Click to expand...

And no, it didn’t “revert back” because South Carolina had already ceded all right to the fort years earlier. The Federal troops were on US propety; it was the Confederates who committed an act of war by opening fire on them.
 
Closer said:
It reverted back to the state that originally donated the land. The Federal troops were illegal squatters, and committing an act of war against Carolina.
Click to expand...

Ummm

No.

How can Federal troops be "squatters" in Federal bases, Armouries, etc.?

Especially in the case of Fort Sumter.

No, the only acts of war are the South's confiscation of federal properties and their firing on Federal troops.
 
"...Before the war, Sherman at times even expressed some sympathy with the view of Southern whites that the black race was benefiting from slavery, although he opposed breaking up slave families and advocated teaching slaves to read and write.] During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies...."

en.wikipedia.org

William Tecumseh Sherman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So a terrorist General and a racist to boot.
 
Rich2018 said:
"...Before the war, Sherman at times even expressed some sympathy with the view of Southern whites that the black race was benefiting from slavery, although he opposed breaking up slave families and advocated teaching slaves to read and write.] During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies...."

en.wikipedia.org

William Tecumseh Sherman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So a terrorist General and a racist to boot.
Click to expand...

Terrorist General?????

Your grasp of history is tenuous at best.
 
The objective of a terrorist, is to terrorize.

Sherman did that in Georgia.
 
Rich2018 said:
The objective of a terrorist, is to terrorize.

Sherman did that in Georgia.
Click to expand...

He terrorized Atlanta by allowing retreating confederates under Hood to torch bales of cotton, supplies and over eighty ammo rail cars to prevent their capture.

Even more terrifying Sherman's men were actively engaged in fire fighting.

A week after the battle he terrorized the people of Atlanta even more by removing Federal forces.
 
"We are not confronting “a whole new form of warfare,” if terrorism is taken to mean the waging of war by attacking the other side’s civilian society. In fact, a case can be made that terrorism, thus defined, is in the modern era something of an American invention. I’m referring, of course, to General William T. Sherman and his March to the Sea, an attack on the Southern civilian base calculated to emasculate the Confederacy’s power to wage war against the Union..."

observer.com

Who Invented Terrorism? Does ‘Sherman’ Ring a Bell?

After terror comes fear, hysteria and loss of the power to think straight. Thus we have the influential New York Times writer, Thomas L. Friedman, informing his frightened and confused readers that…
observer.com observer.com
 
Rich2018 said:
"We are not confronting “a whole new form of warfare,” if terrorism is taken to mean the waging of war by attacking the other side’s civilian society. In fact, a case can be made that terrorism, thus defined, is in the modern era something of an American invention. I’m referring, of course, to General William T. Sherman and his March to the Sea, an attack on the Southern civilian base calculated to emasculate the Confederacy’s power to wage war against the Union..."

observer.com

Who Invented Terrorism? Does ‘Sherman’ Ring a Bell?

After terror comes fear, hysteria and loss of the power to think straight. Thus we have the influential New York Times writer, Thomas L. Friedman, informing his frightened and confused readers that…
observer.com observer.com
Click to expand...

Keep googling OP-ED pieces....


You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your hands, or any thing that you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and, if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it. You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better.


I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds of thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of families of rebel soldiers left in our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.


But my dear sirs when Peace does come, you may call on me for any thing-Then I will share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Letter of William T. Sherman to James M. Calhoun, E.E. Rawson, and S.C. Wells, September 12, 1864
 
element94 said:
View attachment 67311892
William T. Sherman
Full General-In-Chief of the Army
​
And worthy of a statue in every United State. In fact, we may need someone like him again soon if traitorous trends continue from the now fully radicalized right wing.
Click to expand...
Well sheman is one of america's greatest monsters, his march won no favors and historically he is one of the most cruel generals having no issue going after civilians for military goals.

In the civil war you could have picked any other general, but you brought up the one that if a general today would have been imprisoned for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and in modern times would have fit better as a general for saddam hussein than america.
 
beerftw said:
Well sheman is one of america's greatest monsters, his march won no favors and historically he is one of the most cruel generals having no issue going after civilians for military goals.

In the civil war you could have picked any other general, but you brought up the one that if a general today would have been imprisoned for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and in modern times would have fit better as a general for saddam hussein than america.
Click to expand...


I agree, his infamous march through Georgia was an act of pure terrorism.
 
Rich2018 said:
I agree, his infamous march through Georgia was an act of pure terrorism.
Click to expand...



... IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
Click to expand...

V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
Click to expand...

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.
Click to expand...

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms....
Click to expand...

— William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom