Nice to have someone his own age to talk to.

[Big RR]

Of course, Meade, Lee did publicly resign his commission before he took any arms against the armies that were invading his state (or country). , so his oath is really not applicable. Whether he committed treason against the USA is a different question which could be debated, preferably in another thread.

and of course I am well aware of that. The question is, having sworn an oath, does it mean a hill of beans to say later "Well I didn't mean it". Or perhaps, "Well I decided that oath doesn't count any more"? Serious people can disagree.

No, but when you resign, it no longer applies; it is, after all, the oath made by someone who is an officer if the US, and when you resign you are no longer an officer. I can also resign my citizenship, and would not then be subject to the same duties as a citizen.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Can’t you recognize an opinion?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk are the prime suspects, and you would don’t lie and say you wouldn’t do it. Just because these leftists won’t come out say it will not stop me from saying it.
Don’t have a stroke, you old fart.

In plain English, you are making shit up. You cannot provide one instance of any "liberal" trying to kick "southerners who are not ashamed of their ancestors" out of the army. You cannot name one southerner who has experienced this phenomenon. Total waste of space.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, but when you resign, it no longer applies; it is, after all, the oath made by someone who is an officer if the US, and when you resign you are no longer an officer. I can also resign my citizenship, and would not then be subject to the same duties as a citizen.

I disagree but am more interested in your sudden conversion to "lib-ism". To contend as you do above, you are then solidly in the camp of those who would say that the deep south and then the we-too-be-southerners had every right to "renounce" citizenship and go so far as demonstrate their freedom from the duties of a citizen as to fire naughty shells at Federal property?

[Big RR]

I have always been open about my position on this; I do believe that the south had the right to secede (and still believe that any state has the right to secede, even now) and that the civil war cost much more, and achieved much less, than just letting them go would have. Indeed, I would bet that, had they seceded, they (or at least many of the states, would have been banging on the door for reentry within a few decades. Likewise slavery was an institution which could not last and would have collapsed withing a couple of decades as well.

I am not buying the myth of the noble south which was "gone with the wind", nor do I buy that the north fought for altruistic reasons like wanting to end slavery; like all wars it was fought for economic reasons and clothed in high minded ideals to cover that dirty fact.

As for Lee, which began this discussion, I have long thought his decision was one made for moral (at least as he understood them) reasons and not pragmatic ones (unlike countries, individuals do not always act in their own economic interest). It would have made far more economic sense for Lee to just go along and assume command of the federal troops, but he could not, in good conscience, participate in an invasion of Virginia. Indeed, I wonder what I would do int he same situation, and can understood his decision. Hell, I detested Trump much more than any president in my lifetime (not to mention most people I have met), but if the US were invaded, I would defend it even if he were president; likewise, Lee chose to stand with his homeland (Virginia). And yes, I do believe he had every right to resign his commission and do it.

As for shelling federal property, I have posted on it a number of times and, for the sake f brevity, will not continue that argument here.

[liberty]

Can’t you recognize an opinion?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk are the prime suspects, and you would don’t lie and say you wouldn’t do it. Just because these leftists won’t come out say it will not stop me from saying it.
Don’t have a stroke, you old fart.

In plain English, you are making shit up. You cannot provide one instance of any "liberal" trying to kick "southerners who are not ashamed of their ancestors" out of the army. You cannot name one southerner who has experienced this phenomenon. Total waste of space.

If you can read, you can see that I didn’t state any facts; it is an opinion. If you don’t like it, that is too bad for you. Here is a hint for you when I am dealing with facts, I will provide evidence. However, I feel that my suspicions are on solid ground. You don’t think Shit Head would do the things I said if it could? Hell Shit Head would do even worse; look at the avatar; it tells you everything you need to know. Stalin didn’t believe in God either, but it didn’t stop him from being a devil.

[MajGenl.Meade]

If you can read, you can see that I didn’t state any facts

Well, we can agree that you didn't state any facts. Status quo ante

So it's not a fact that liberals are trying to oust southerners from the military if they are proud of their ancestors.

And it's not a fact that any southerners in the military who are proud of their ancestor have been the subject of such harassment.

Those two things which are not factual (i.e. not true) are your "opinion"?

Then your opinion is bullshit (as previously stated). Do you have an opinion that the moon is made of cheese? That's not a fact either.

[Long Run]

I do believe that the south had the right to secede (and still believe that any state has the right to secede, even now) and that the civil war cost much more, and achieved much less, than just letting them go would have.

Grant in his memoirs does as good a job as I have seen addressing this:

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.

The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders.

It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.

As for the expected cost of the war, everyone thought it would be a brief action (a common trait of all long wars):

My own views at that time were like those officially expressed by Mr. Seward at a later day, that "the war would be over in ninety days." I continued to entertain these views until after the battle of Shiloh. I believe now that there would have been no more battles at the West after the capture of Fort Donelson if all the troops in that region had been under a single commander who would have followed up that victory.

[Big RR]

LR--Grant's position is a pretty good summary of the position of some, maybe even many, at the time. Obviously I do not agree with it, but he is as entitled to his opinion as any one of us is.

As for secession being revolution, even if it were, sometimes the best way to handle a revolution is to negotiate a settlement rather than fight an expensive and destructive war to keep persons together who should be apart. Again, I think we might all be better off had the government just allowed the south to secede, but then that was not what we did.

As for the underestimation of the cost, that is precisely why negotiation is usually preferable to the fight. Neither is easy, but wars rarely result in a lasting peace, it more just puts a temporary lid on the animosities.

[Long Run]

Meade-

I guess you could confuse me with a worse choice, but still . . .

[Big RR]

Sorry, I have appropriately amended the response.

But in my defense, I just assumed Meade would quote one of his colleagues.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Heh heh. My friend Snooks had an opinion about Lee

“Colonel, you desire, ah’m sure, to see your home again. We all do, sir. Howevah, like us you know that this can only come about after the victory of our cause—the independence that you also strive for. I must say howevah that ah may not approve so highly of your usin’ a name that is not yours to avoid complications arisin’ from your service to your government to whom you have a first allegiance”.

The old fraud! This from the man who’d discarded his sworn duty to his nation and raised his sword against it in defence of his parochial cabbage patch. Was there honour in that and in fighting for a rebel government dedicated to keep blacks enslaved? Not that I cared a whit.

“It is the most troublesome item of the whole”, said I, all innocent. “It would perhaps have been best to cast aside that allegiance openly; to trample on the government that has been so generous to me; to give up honour to follow self-interest. And yet General, I could not so openly spurn my friends, my comrades-in-arms, my Queen and country”.

They told me later that Lee’s heart wasn’t as up to the job as it should have been and for a few minutes there I was afraid I’d killed him. He took on the attitude and hue of a landed codfish and I thrust a glass of water to his lips in alarm. He choked a little and then with a supreme effort of will composed himself and resumed our conversation.

[Big RR]

Well, if Snooks said it, that settles it.