Posted on 04/19/2018 2:08:50 PM PDT by fugazi
1775: An expedition of 700 British regulars under the command of Lt. Col. Frances Smith departs Boston to seize and destroy military stores of the Massachusetts Militia in Concord. At dawn, 70 militia members led by Capt. John Parker meet the British at Lexington, and the two sides briefly skirmish. The Americans withdraw and regroup, attacking the redcoats again at North Bridge with a much larger force, forcing the British to turn back towards Boston.
The American Revolution has begun.
1861: 86 years to the day after the “shot heard round the world,” Massachusetts volunteers headed for Washington, D.C. are attacked by a secessionist mob in Baltimore. Four soldiers and eight rioters die in the opening shots of the American Civil War.
Meanwhile, Pres. Abraham Lincoln orders a Naval blockade of Confederate ports in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The blockade is extended to North Carolina and Virginia the following week.
1917: The Army-chartered transport ship SS Mongolia becomes the first vessel to challenge Germany’s naval blockade of England. Fitted with three 6-in. guns manned by Naval crews, Mongolia drives off and damages – possibly sinking – a German U-boat in the United States’ first Naval engagement since entering World War I.
1945: Following the most massive artillery, Naval gunfire and air bombardment of the Pacific War, U.S. soldiers and Marines of Lt. Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr.’s combined Tenth Army launch a coordinated ground assault against the dug-in Japanese defenders of the infamous Shuri Line on Okinawa.
In June, Buckner, the son of Confederate Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner, becomes the highest-ranking U.S. officer killed in action during World War II. His replacement, Maj. Gen. Roy S. Geiger is the only Marine to ever...
(Excerpt) Read more at victoryinstitute.net ...
Were you really that naive? They were Democrats. Democrats don't want to cut spending. Did you not know that?
Back in 1992, I didn't know that everyone who worked in the media was a Democrat. I thought they were "journalists" who had no declared political preference.
But why do Democrats want to spend government money? Why do they want to run up deficits? I remember Sam Nunn was a relatively reasonable Democrat, and there were a few others. (Fritz Hollings.)
So why is the modern Democrat party so intent on Deficit Spending? Is it to acquire and keep power?
It's been that way for some time. Didn't you know? The nominal beneficiaries change, but the program hasn't changed since Roosevelt. Once upon a time it was Southern Whites the Democrats appealed to. Now it isn't.
The movie, from a book written by Dale Coons ( I think) is very good, depicting the role of the Intruder in Viet Nam, an aircraft with no defensive armament.
Homo critics panned it as a guy-bonding movie.
The scene with the A-1s m(SAR). which seems to be in slow motion, are amazing.
Not to diminish the ground pounders, all the aviators in the conflict had big ones!
(especially the helicopter pilots)
Dale Coonts.
Great book.
It’s your distortion of reality that I object to. It’s like someone asking about Benjamin Franklin and you replying, “Oh yeah - he had gout”
It’s true - but in no way the defining element for Franklin - or the colonialists.
Lampster that wick of yours blew out a long time ago.
Thought the American Revolution was about taxation, not ownership of slaves?
The major difference being that they cared enough about their cause to win their rebellion. Unlike the Southerners in 1861-65.
In other words “buying votes.” Why? To get into power. Why do they want power? To Enrich themselves. See where this is going?
It’s true - but in no way the defining element for Franklin - or the colonialists.
I'm glad to see you admit that it is distortion when applied to the Founders. It would be nice if you also recognized that it is the very same distortion when applied to the Confederates.
It's true, but in no way the defining element for the men who fought to protect their homeland from invasion.
I've come to realize that subsequent generations will believe it is about whatever those who win the conflict will say it is about. Even if it isn't true. (The winners write the History books.)
Had the founders been subjected to the exact same subsequent propaganda as the Confederates, we would all believe they demanded independence solely for the purpose of owning slaves.
That section of the Declaration of Independence "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us..." would be constantly cited as proof that the "Rebellion" was about slavery. They would point to the fact that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, so obviously the war was about slavery. They would repeat this accusation, over and over and over again. Every time the topic came up, they would start with "But Slavery!"
In other words, they would deliberately manipulate the history to make them look evil.
But the southern slavocracy made slavery their emblem - their raison d’être.
And the losers peddle the myths...
That's one theory. A more accurate one is that Mad King George III was not so fanatical about shedding blood to impose his will as was Abraham Lincoln. King George acquiesced to their independence after having lost around 15,000 casualties. Lincoln would keep the war going until 750,000 people were dead.
England always could have ground the colonists into pulp, had they been determined to do so. They were simply more restrained than was Lincoln. Also the US had allies in the British Parliament (Edmund Burke) who weren't arrested and thrown in Jail for saying or writing things Lincoln didn't like.
May 18, 1864, the following order: “You will take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce … and prohibit any further publication thereof…. You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison … the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers.”
So the side which invaded them keeps telling us over and over and over again. (by the way, "slav-ocracy" implies it is the slaves who are ruling. It doesn't actually make any sense, but I know it allows you to get that "slave" word in there once again, and so that's why you use it. )
So do the winners. You can't go from supporting the Corwin Amendment to declaring you were fighting a war because you objected to slavery.
Only gullible people can believe such nonsense.
That's not a theory at all but a fanciful interpretation of history. But say for the sake of argument King George had been willing to wage a far bloodier war. Do you truly doubt that the Founding Fathers would not have fought to the death to prevail? They were, after all, fighting for their liberty which seems to me to be a far greater motivator than fighting for slavery.
I have no idea what you’re babbling on about - and obviously you don’t either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.