Councilman says it wasn't 'Civil War'...

Councilman says it wasn't 'Civil War' -- OrlandoSentinel.com

There are 10 comments on the Orlando Sentinel story from Aug 12, 2007, titled Councilman says it wasn't 'Civil War' -- OrlandoSentinel.com. In it, Orlando Sentinel reports that:

In a nod to Florida's Confederate roots and an infamous ancestor, Edgewood City Council member Neil Powell asked Tuesday that a suggestion accompany the city's $2,500 donation to the coming 34th annual Pioneer ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Orlando Sentinel.

Billy Bearden

Whitesburg, GA

#1 Aug 12, 2007
"Civil War" is the term used to describe a conflict that pits 2 or more opposing forces vying for control over 1 government. The conflict between Union and Confederate Forces between 1861 - 1865 was not for control of 1 government, nor was it a 'civil war' by any stretch. It was all about the illegal invasion of the Confederate States by a foreign power. Kinda like what is going on today in Iraq.

"War Between the States" was the term the Congress of the United States of America used when they bestowed Congressional Gold Medals on the last 2 remaining Confederate Veterans.

The sarcasm exhibited by the reporters Rich McKay and Erin Ailworth is thick and rife with disdain for the Honorable Councilman Neil Powell , but severely misplaced and without merit.

If Councilman Powell, Webster's Dictionary, Military fact, and the U.S. Congress are of 1 mind, why not address the Festival re-enactors by the correct terminology?
Terry A

United States

#2 Aug 12, 2007
Councilman Powell is correct. A Civil War is a conflict in which two or more factions are fighting for control of the same government. The Southern states had left the current government (secession) and set up their own. The Northern states were intent upon conquering the Southern states to force them to return.
jimmy shirley

Boynton Beach, FL

#3 Aug 12, 2007
Rich McKay and Erin Ailworth are either yankees or yankeefied people from the South. Few things grip my gall as when some so-called "Southerner" makes a post claiming Confederate heritage, then proceeds to rip his claimed ancestry apart.
That said to say this. These modern-day, marxist rewriters of the historical record have themselves a heyday by slandering, ridiculing the Old South, and those who truly understand what was at stake and, in today's society, recognise the results of the failure of the CSA to prevail.
That they have either been raised here and write these things, or have moved here from yankeeland and write thusly, represents what Frank Connor wrote about in his monumental book, THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE. It represents the failure of the South to uphold its legacy of honour and integrity.
I just wonder how a Southern writer would be received if, in a moment of insanity and lunacy, he moved to yankeeland and proceeded to rip apart most aspects of yankee life and their history. Can you imagine him doing that in Boston or Hartford or Providence?
Tom Hale

Grass Valley, CA

#4 Aug 12, 2007
The War of Northern Aggression was nothing more than the murderous onslaught of immoral yankees upon the free and peaceful people of the South. A war that continues today in the blasphemous writings of authors such as these. Bigots such as these should be exposed as the hate mongers they are. Whether yankee, carpet bagger or scalawag, this is the true evil. And one must wonder why these same denizens of hell continue to support the enslavement of the South today under the striped rag of oppression! Free the South! Or suffer the fate of tyrants!
Carl Mintz

Taylor, MI

#5 Aug 12, 2007
What's wrong with the War Between the states. That's what it was, wasn't it? Florida is in the South and this is the term the South uses. Let it be used!
MI.

“Independent”

Since: Jan 07

Shreveport, Louisiana

#6 Aug 12, 2007
Neil Powell is absolutely right! It is about time don't you all think to stop spreading the distortion and myth of a "Civil War". Truth should prevail in our day and time and will if the politicos are stopped in their tracks from misusing the horrendous events of 1861-1865.

I have some information on Lewis Thornton Powell in my genealogy data base, and have not yet connected him to my old Virginia Thornton lines. I know he lost two brothers iKIA at the Battle of the invasion of Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Biographic Sketch of Lewis Powell

Lewis Powell was the youngest boy in a family of eight children. He spent the first three years of his life in Randolph County, Alabama, the next twelve in two rural Georgia counties, and the two years before his departure to join the Confederate Army at age seventeen in Live Oak, Florida. Powell's father was a Baptist minister, school master, and farmer.

Biographers describe Powell as a quiet, introverted youth who enjoyed fishing and caring for sick and injured animals. His fondness for nursing animals led his sisters to give Lewis the nickname "Doc."

In 1861 Powell joined the 2nd Florida Infantry. Wounded at Gettysburg on July 2, 1863, Powell was captured by Union troops and consigned as a POW nurse at Gettysburg Hospital.

While at Gettysburg Hospital, Powell developed a relationship with a volunteer nurse named Margaret Branson. Transferred to West Buildings Hospital in Baltimore in September 1863, Powell--most likely with the help of Branson--escaped within a week of his arrival.

Powell fled Baltimore, finding his way behind lines to Virginia, where he met up with and joined a Confederate Calvary outfit known as Mosby's Rangers. Fellow rangers described young Powell as "chivalrous, generous, and gallant" and as "always keyed up for battle." While serving in the Mosby's Rangers, it is likely that Powell began his involvement with the Confederate Secret Service.

In January 1865, Powell again crossed lines, claiming to have deserted his regiment. Powell signed the Oath of Allegiance to the Union using the alias "Paine." He settled in Baltimore, where he stayed at the boarding house of Margaret Branson's.

On 1st May, 1865, President Andrew Johnson ordered the formation of a nine-man military commission to try the conspirators. It was argued by Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War, that the men should be tried by a military court as Lincoln had been Commander in Chief of the army. Several members of the cabinet, including Gideon Welles (Secretary of the Navy), Edward Bates (Attorney General), Orville H. Browning (Secretary of the Interior), and Henry McCulloch (Secretary of the Treasury), disapproved, preferring a civil trial. However, James Speed, the Attorney General, agreed with Stanton and therefore the defendants did not enjoy the advantages of a jury trial.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...

sic sem•per ty•ran•nis Pronunciation:(sEk sem'per ty-rän'nis; Eng. sik sem'pur ti-ran'is),[key] Latin. thus always to tyrants (motto of the State of Virginia). Killed Lincoln To Avenge the Hanging of Capt. John Yates Beall, CSN in NYC.

Southern Historical Society Papers.
Vol. XXXIII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1905, page 71. John Yates Beall, Gallant Soldier
http://www.csnavy.org/bios/beall,john,y.htm

Confederate States Navy Research Center, Mobile, Alabama, www.csnavy.org
Southern Historical Society Papers
Vol. XXXII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1904, page 99
Jim Welch

AOL

#7 Aug 12, 2007
The councilman is correct.

A "civil war" by definition is when opposing factions are fighting for control of the same Government.

This was not the case in the War of Northern Aggression.

The South - the Confederacy - wanted to withdraw from the Union and established a new Government. It was a generally recognized Right to do so.

In fact, when Virginia ratified the Constitution and thereby helped create the original 13 States, Virginia (as well as other States) specifically reserved in writing the Right to withdraw from that Union.

After defeat, each of the Confederate States were forced at bayonet to sign a statement that they forever relinguish the Right to secede. If that Right did not exist, why were they forced to sign a release?

Lincoln and the propagandized school textbooks would have you believe the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of Right of self-determination of Government –“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth.”

However, the fact is the Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederate States of America who fought for the Right of Self Government, the Rights and Liberties of the Individual.

Gallant men fought for gallant ideals that embodied the very tenets of the Founders. This was recognized by even the foreign press such as The London Times which published on November 7, 1861:
”The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South.”

No, this was not a civil war.

Jim Welch
Boling, Texas
Jim Elkins

AOL

#8 Aug 12, 2007
The counsilman is rightit WAS NOT a civil war.Call it the War Between The States if you will, but it was really The War Of Northern Aggression. It is plain to see that the author of this article is another transplanted yankee coming down south with all his ignorance and making fun of our heritage and culture. Someone ought to buy him a tank of gas and show him that I95 goes back north too. It's for sure we have enough of peopl like him here allready.
Lamont G Sible Jr

United States

#9 Aug 13, 2007
"The real issue involved in the relations between the North and the South of the American States, is the great principle of self-government. Shall a dominant party of the North rule the South, or shall the people of the South rule themselves. This is the great matter in controversy". Montgomery, Alabama,-- Robert Barnwell Rhett,1860
Texas gal

AOL

#10 Oct 25, 2008
I agree with all the comments regarding the right of states to determine their own destiny. It is horrifying to me that my ancestors were willing to kill, torture, imprison and conviscate our fellow Americans and their property.

However, one questions begs an answer: when would the South have voluntarily freed and otherwise equalized the position of African Americans? I sympathize greatly with Americans in the South, I live in Texas and we'd like to be more self determining a state here too. I honor the same sacrifice made by my "yankee" and "confederate" ancestors/soldiers.
Now we find ourselves in a war bigger than ones amongst ourselves. It is between the forward moving, western society and ones that seek to eradicate us all forever. Isn't it time we agree to honor the past,and the values of our struggles, but look ahead and see we are all in danger? Only by joining together as a great nation will we defeat the enemy that surrounds us everywhere. So maybe the War of Aggression was not fought in vain. Perhaps it was to strengthen us into a cohesive nation to prepare for a far worse future showdown.
It's something to think about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Uncle Tab 239,692
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min One way or another 205,196
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 22 min Captain Yesterday 1,063
News Trump campaign says it doesn't want support fro... 52 min Lawrence Wolf 6
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Not Documented 61,059
News Mike Pence, Gop VP nominee, 'deeply offended' b... 1 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News GOP at war with itself 1 hr positronium 1,721
More from around the web