Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
This can be true only in #3World, using a definition of "slander" from the #3LegalDictionary.
Perhaps your tax lawyer will explain the real world meaning of the word "slander" to you.
Some believe he was mad at his men for allowing Schofield to escape from Spring Hill to Franklin.
I've never tried to trace down the source for the claim, but I wonder if it actually came from something Hood said. The problem is compounded by his gross incompetence; was it disciplinary, or just a stupid move? Hood's career was pretty rife with the latter, and it would be no surprise to learn that his men would generate rumors like this; not too difficult to believe that even Hood might have started the rumor to excuse a bad tactical decision.
The site doesn't source it, but maybe it's worth looking into some more. If I find time today (not likely, but who knows?) I'll see what I can find.
[Blake] What was that??
[Hawkeye] I think 'the wind' just broke its arm!
I don't know the details of the battles, but Hood lost 11,000 men in two attacks near Atlanta against Sherman in July 1864. The Battle of Franklin was just another example or the problem with Hood's tactics. Was he mad at his men against Sherman too or just slow to understand what he was doing?
In defense of the attack philosophy, a Southern colonel observed that the South generally faced larger, better equiped, and better supplied armies and had to take more risks to overcome what would otherwise be the inevitable result of those advantages.
what was done by the damnyankees was TARGETED intentionally to strike CIVILIANS.
that makes it a WAR CRIME, THEN & NOW.
free dixie,sw
damnyankees have ever been "holier than thou" HYPOCRYTES!
it is their NATURE!
free dixie,sw
AND that i KNOW that no matter what i did post that you, FOOL that you demonstrably are,would say was false/propaganda.
face it 3, everybody here is ON to your game.
and you DID run to the admin mods didn't YOU???
a simple yes or no will surfice.
free dixie,sw
If he behaves anything like his persona on this forum one may easily predict the following scenario: The tax lawyer will try in vain to correct his definition, but he'll probably respond by calling the poor guy names and telling the lawyer that his understanding of the law is wrong. When the lawyer tries to leave he will continue following the guy out the door and down the street while berating him with subsequent insults and attempting to bait him into further conversation.
rotflmRao!
did you run to your mommy too????
free dixie,sw
rotflmRao!
free dixie,sw
lincoln, the tyrant & WAR CRIMINAL,is the "little tin god" & clayFOOTED saint of every LIB, damnedyankee & marxist i've ever met.
free dixie,sw
as for Hiroshima, it was a MILITARY target.
killing civilians, WHILE targeting military facilities, is acceptable under the LAW of WAR.
MURDER,LOOTING,TORTURE, RAPE & ROBBERY of CIVILIANS during wartime AND ABUSING helpless POWs are WAR CRIMES, which are punishable by DEATH by hanging/firing squad.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
free dixie,sw
rotflmRao!
free dixie,sw
Being that they weren't citizens, it's no different than the movement to deport Mexicans today. The southern states held 4 million slaves which would be proportional to 40,000,000 immigrants today. No state would be able to handle 40,000,000 jobless immigrants. There are only 10,000,000 Mexican immigrants scattered in more than one state and you see the hand-wringing over that here. And can you try to discuss this without all the name-calling?
Having arrived before the Mayflower, it would seem undeniable that Africans were established here by the time Lincoln spoke.
Illinois had laws against massive immigration. That's who it applied to, those that weren't here yet, the same as our immigration laws today.
It appears you believe neither the slaves nor the free Blacks worked.
They have to assimilate. Bringing in all at once, they can't assimilate.
Perhaps you feel that Africans who arrived here in chains, without a Green Card, committed an offense which meant that their descendants, living here centuries later, could be subjected to deportation.
I believe that being that they weren't citizens, Illinois had a right for the states that brought them to solve the problems of assimilation. Slavery had to be ended and citizenship granted before Illinois could allow open immigration between states so there wouldn't be a problem with assimilation to just one state.
I'm sure you meant to say free people with black skin.
They weren't freed yet. Just one state could not take them all in, it would be the equivilant of 40,000,000 today.
Illinois did not want an excessive number of people with black skin in their neighborhood. #3Fan does not want an excessive number of people with brown skin in his neighborhood. No te preocupes. Ellos no vayan comer sus niños.
Amazing you guys will just lie about anything you feel like. Character means nothing to you.
You quoted him out of context proving that nothing you say can be trusted.
His partner will know all about it.
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.