Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default Peace Democrats - Now and Then

    It seems the Democrats have not changed much since the Civil War. In fact, it would seem the same Dems in elected office during the Civil War and the same ones in offcie today

    In both cases, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history


    During the American Civil War, a majority of Ohioans supported the war effort and the Republican Party, although there was a sizable minority, known as the Peace Democrats or the Copperheads, who opposed the conflict. One of the initial reasons for why the Peace Democrats did not support the Northern war effort was that a sizable number of white Ohioans, especially those living along the Ohio River, had migrated to the state from slaveholding states. While these people could not legally own slaves in Ohio, many of these people did have family members residing further south who owned African American slaves. These people oftentimes sympathized with slaveholders, agreeing with many white Southerners that the federal government did not have the power to limit slavery's existence. Some Peace Democrats also feared that President Abraham Lincoln intended to free the slaves. White Ohioans who objected to slavery's end, usually on racist grounds, feared that African Americans would flood the North looking for jobs if they were given their freedom. These white Ohioans did not want to compete with African Americans for employment.

    Peace Democrats preferred compromise to warfare as a way of settling differences between the North and the South. Several Ohioans participated in a peace convention during early 1861. The convention was held in Washington, DC, and the delegates hoped to convince President Lincoln to either acquiesce to the Confederacy's demands to get its citizens to rejoin the Union or to simply let the Southern states leave the United States. Lincoln ignored the peace convention's attempt to end the conflict peacefully. Politically, most people who participated in the peace convention affiliated themselves with the Peace Democrats. Their opponents nicknamed them Copperheads, describing the Peace Democrats as poisonous snakes waiting to strike blow in favor of the South. The first reference to Peace Democrats as Copperheads occurred in Ohio in 1861.

    Clement Vallandigham was the most well-known Peace Democrat in Ohio. He helped organize a rally for the Democratic Party at Mount Vernon, Ohio, held on May 1, 1863. Peace Democrats Vallandigham, Samuel Cox, and George Pendleton all delivered speeches denouncing General Order No. 38. In April 1863, General Ambrose Burnside, commander of the Department of Ohio, issued General Order No. 38. Burnside situated his headquarters in Cincinnati. Located on the Ohio River, just north of the slave state of Kentucky, Cincinnati had a number of residents sympathetic to the Confederacy. Burnside hoped to intimidate Confederate sympathizers with General Order No. 38.

    General Order No. 38 stated:

    The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department. Persons committing such offenses will be at once arrested with a view of being tried. . .or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends. It must be understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this department.
    Burnside also declared that, in certain cases, violations of General Order No. 38 could result in death.

    Vallandigham so opposed the order that he purportedly stated that he "despised it, spit upon it, trampled it under his feet." He also supposedly encouraged his fellow Peace Democrats to openly resist Burnside and his order. Vallandigham went on to chastise President Lincoln for not seeking a peaceable and immediate end to the Civil War and for allowing General Burnside to thwart citizen rights under a free government.

    In attendance at the Mount Vernon rally were two army officers under Burnside's command. They reported to Burnside that Vallandigham had violated General Order No. 38. The general ordered the immediate arrest of the Copperhead. On May 5, 1863, a company of soldiers arrested Vallandigham at his home in Dayton and brought the man to Cincinnati to stand trial.

    Burnside charged Vallandigham with the following crimes:

    Publicly expressing, in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the Government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion.
    A military tribunal heard the case, and Vallandigham offered no serious defense against the charges, contending that military courts had no jurisdiction over his case. The tribunal found Vallandigham guilty and sentenced him to remain in a United States prison for the remainder of the war.

    Vallandigham's attorney, George Pugh, appealed the tribunal's decision to Humphrey Leavitt, a judge on the federal circuit court. Pugh, like his client, claimed that the military court did not have proper jurisdiction in this case and had violated Vallandigham's constitutional rights. Judge Leavitt rejected Vallandigham's argument, agreeing with General Burnside that military authority was necessary during a time of war to ensure that opponents to the United States Constitution, in this case supporters of the Confederacy, would not succeed in overthrowing the Constitution and the rights that it guaranteed United States citizens.

    As a result of Leavitt's decision, authorities were to send Vallandigham to federal prison. President Lincoln feared that Peace Democrats across the North might rise up to prevent Vallandigham's detention. The president commuted Vallandigham's sentence to exile in the Confederacy. On May 25, Burnside sent Vallandigham into Confederate lines.

    Some Peace Democrats resorted to more radical means, including subversion, to protest the Civil War. Some of these men formed a secret society known as the Order of American Knights or the Sons of Liberty. In February 1864, Vallandigham was elected supreme commander of the organization. Ohio government officials estimated that between eighty thousand and 110,000 Ohioans belonged to the Order of American Knights, but most historians discount these numbers as being dramatically higher than the group's actual numbers.

    Rumors circulated throughout the North during 1864 that the Sons of Liberty intended to free Southern prisoners at several prisoner of war camps, including at Johnson's Island and Camp Chase, in Ohio. These freed prisoners would form the basis of a new Confederate army that would operate in the heart of the Union. Supposedly, General John Hunt Morgan, who had raided Ohio the previous year, would return to the state and assist this new army. The plot never materialized. William Rosecrans, assigned to oversee the Department of Missouri, discovered the planned uprising and warned Northern governors to remain cautious. John Brough, Ohio's governor, sent out spies to infiltrate the Sons of Liberty's ranks. These men succeeded and stopped the uprising before it could occur. Confederate supporters hoped to capture the Michigan, a gunboat operating on Lake Erie near Sandusky. They would then use the gunboat to free Confederate prisoners at Johnson Island. Union authorities arrested the plot's ringleader, Charles Cole, and squelched any of the other Sons of Liberty's plans.

    Rosecrans' and Brough's decisive actions in 1864 helped subdue the Sons of Liberty. Northern battlefield victories in 1864 also convinced many Ohioans, including reluctant or half-hearted supporters of the Union war effort, that the war would end shortly in a Northern victory. As a result of these events, the Peace Democrats began to decline in power.

    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=616


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656128

    Default

    Maybe order #38 could be resurected for todays war. I kinda like the idea of shipping their dumb asses off to the middle east.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaffer View Post
    Maybe order #38 could be resurected for todays war. I kinda like the idea of shipping their dumb asses off to the middle east.
    Na, ship them off to red state America. You now, the fly overcountry Queen Nancy does not want to have to stop in and refuel the little jet in

    But is funny to see how the Dems have not changed in over 100 years


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31137

    Default

    How is stifling debate about a war productive?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    How is stifling debate about a war productive?
    Only when they debate with lies and distortions

    i.e. how Pres Bush lied about WMD's and how the Dems were NOT given the same intel reports as Pres Bush had.

    Or how Dems say they support the troops but they have a NON BINDING resolution against the reinforcments so they can complete theior mission


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31137

    Default

    I'm saying that an order such as General Order 38 would be counterproductive and against the intent of the 1st Amendment.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    I'm saying that an order such as General Order 38 would be counterproductive and against the intent of the 1st Amendment.



    It would be counterproductive only if you are a Dem and want the US to lose the war in Iraq


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red states rule View Post
    It would be counterproductive only if you are a Dem and want the US to lose the war in Iraq
    No... it would be counterproductive if you believe in free speech and open debate.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    No... it would be counterproductive if you believe in free speech and open debate.
    It seems the Dems only want their speech to be heard, and the liberal media backs them in their lies

    Senate Republican wanted to allow votes on several proposed resolutions while the Democratic leadership wanted debate limited to two resolutions.

    You do not hear about this in many sources

    It seems the modern day Dems are the genetic descendants of the Civil war Democrats. It at first you do not win the war - quit


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    I'm saying that an order such as General Order 38 would be counterproductive and against the intent of the 1st Amendment.
    Yes it would be. Those were desperate times and a lot of civil rights were surpressed out of necessity. Doing it now days would raise a huge uproar.

    At the same time, how do you get the liberal media to tell the truth and report on all the facts? How do you stop the undermining of the government by the left? And that IS exactly what is taking place. How do you stop the enabling of the enemy by telling secret information and showing their propaganda on our news programs, disguised as news?

    Perhaps a new version of general order #38. Of course I won't hold my breath for it.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaffer View Post
    Yes it would be. Those were desperate times and a lot of civil rights were surpressed out of necessity. Doing it now days would raise a huge uproar.

    At the same time, how do you get the liberal media to tell the truth and report on all the facts? How do you stop the undermining of the government by the left? And that IS exactly what is taking place. How do you stop the enabling of the enemy by telling secret information and showing their propaganda on our news programs, disguised as news?

    Perhaps a new version of general order #38. Of course I won't hold my breath for it.
    Indeed. Then people could physically feel the union was on the brink of extinction. The feeling was palpable and real among the people. Desperate times called for desperate measures.

    Today even though the enemy we face is real, the american people don't feel it as much. They don't think that America could possibly crumble to this enemy. Such an act as 38 would cause way more damage then it would cure.

    While i think some democrats words are borderline treasonous, they are merely words. We can't stop people from lieing to the public. We simply have to broadcast the truth louder.
    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

    "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them." - Obiwan Kenobi

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,979
    Thanks (Given)
    34370
    Thanks (Received)
    26486
    Likes (Given)
    2386
    Likes (Received)
    10007
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red states rule View Post
    It seems the Dems only want their speech to be heard, and the liberal media backs them in their lies

    Senate Republican wanted to allow votes on several proposed resolutions while the Democratic leadership wanted debate limited to two resolutions.

    You do not hear about this in many sources

    It seems the modern day Dems are the genetic descendants of the Civil war Democrats. It at first you do not win the war - quit
    Northern Democrats opposed the US Civil War from the beginning. What your argument/link leaves out is, at the time, owning slaves was a Constitutional Right, and no legislation precluded any state from leaving the union as freely as it joined. Northern Democrats were correct from a legal standpoint.

    Attempting to draw a correlation between US Civil War-era Northern Democrats and the Democrat party today is really reaching.

    Lincoln trampled all over the US Constitution, and Burnside just followed suit. General Order # 38 is unConstitutional, period.

    Yes, the liberal-biased MSM is a problem. A problem that can be solved by people refusing to pay for their product, or question what they say and/or seek alternate sources of information.

    Emulating Burnisde and trampling the Constitution is NOT a viable alternative. Just what the Hell do you think we're fighting for anyway? The ideals that embody the US Constitution that have made this Nation the greatest on Earth.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    191
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4942

    Default

    Two questions

    1. Why are anti war advocates soooo against war? True only a very small minority have a zeal for war, most people don't like war, but recognize when it is warranted and necessary.

    2. Does anyone who is staunchly opposed to war think it's productive or ethical for Democrats to oppose the Iraqi war simply to defeat Bush??? How does that help us defeat the terrorists???

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,979
    Thanks (Given)
    34370
    Thanks (Received)
    26486
    Likes (Given)
    2386
    Likes (Received)
    10007
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
    Two questions

    1. Why are anti war advocates soooo against war? True only a very small minority have a zeal for war, most people don't like war, but recognize when it is warranted and necessary.

    2. Does anyone who is staunchly opposed to war think it's productive or ethical for Democrats to oppose the Iraqi war simply to defeat Bush??? How does that help us defeat the terrorists???
    Some people simply oppose war for any reason, period. They think the world is a nice place and if the US would quit meddling all over the world, there wouldn't be any wars. Those people just aren't all that bright, IMO.

    There's more at stake that simply defeating Bush. If we lose in Iraq, we'll listen to at least a decade of "I told you so's." That would include the Dems who originally supported the war and let their opinions change with the wind direction.

    A loss is a major political victory for Democrats and a major setback for Republicans. The fence-sitters will go with the winner, and in this day and age, the fence-sitters represent the swing vote.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    191
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Some people simply oppose war for any reason, period. They think the world is a nice place and if the US would quit meddling all over the world, there wouldn't be any wars. Those people just aren't all that bright, IMO.

    There's more at stake that simply defeating Bush. If we lose in Iraq, we'll listen to at least a decade of "I told you so's." That would include the Dems who originally supported the war and let their opinions change with the wind direction.
    A loss is a major political victory for Democrats and a major setback for Republicans. The fence-sitters will go with the winner, and in this day and age, the fence-sitters represent the swing vote.

    Spot on Mark....That's my point, we don't have the luxury to allow the Democrats to bolster their party at the expense of our country's demise....

    One dirty bomb gets thru, and nothing else matters.....do those people realize that???????

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums