An opposing view: Descendant of black Confederate soldier speaks at museum

Thomasville Times-Enterprise ^ | 24 Feb 2004 | Mark Lastinger

[Non-Sequitur]

Eh, I took a shot. I figure it has to be either you or PeaRidge. While Pea has a history of posting under stupid names, nobody is as pretentious as you.

[#3Fan]

Pictured is the only award #3 will ever earn. It is the Pain in the Ass (PITA) Medal.

You guys sure don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? lol It's good for you to have your delusions challenged.

[nolu chan]

Do any of you have any idea why this insignificant insect thinks he is conversing with us?

[4CJ]

And where was Spooner? Supporting the KKK, which was the Democratic Party in the south, while they burned and closed thousands of public schools for children of all races that had been built by the Freedmen's Bureau.

Titus, please post your proof of this ludicrous assertion.

[4CJ]

Interesting article

Thank you. I'm glad Mr. Winbush has discovered his heritage, and is speaking in the hope that others would shed the revisionist blinders thay have worn for decades.

[4CJ]

Who did you think you were talking to, Non-Seq?

ROTFL!

[4CJ]

Do any of you have any idea why this insignificant insect thinks he is conversing with us?

Insulsissimus est homo?

[#3Fan]

You said: It's illogical to think that there was no right of the staying states to seek separation terms. You can claim that in your thinking, but validity stops there. There was no such construct in the Constitution or supporting documents.

Article IV, Section 1 says that the Congress may prescribe the general laws to prove state's acts.

There was not even one assertion of that in any of the state ratification papers. Lincoln made it public in the first inaugural that he would hold the forts in Florida and Charleston for purposes of taxation, while not revealing to the public the ongoing offers of the Confederacy to compensate the Federal government for all the facilities in Southern states. And even today, there are such people as you that continue with this false representation for your own rhetorical self promotion.

There's nothing false about reading Article IV.

Again, you assert a fallacy. The "stolen" property you refer to was on loan to or owned by the Federal government, not states. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Ill., etc., did not have ownership of anything in any of the seceding states.

Not only real estate, but arms.

Beginning in December, 1860, and continuing until April of 1861, several attempts were made to arrange for compensation, and in view of your past posts, you know that.

They should've followed Artcle IV and worked it out in the Congress before seceding.

Continuing to assert that the South was stealing requires documentation of fiduciary failure of the Confederacy, but the exact opposite was true in 1861.

If they didn't steal, why were there negotiations to return property?

Again, fallacy in assertion, and not supported by any law.

Article IV is law and it is clear.

[Gianni]

Ribbit... Ribbit...

Que?

[Gianni]

Do any of you have any idea why this insignificant insect thinks he is conversing with us?

Even he cannot possibly consider this conversation... Still fun to watch him flail his arms about hoping to get a shot in on someone.

[stainlessbanner]

< snicker >

[stainlessbanner]

The wlat brigade is infamous for multiple-handle disorder.

[Non-Sequitur]

The wlat brigade is infamous for multiple-handle disorder.

As is PeaRidge.

[4CJ]

What he's arguing is that the federal government has the power to prohibit state actions retroactively. The is a clause in the Constitution ['No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed'] prohibiting such.

[#3Fan]

What he's arguing is that the federal government has the power to prohibit state actions retroactively. The is a clause in the Constitution ['No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed'] prohibiting such.

No, "pre" is a prefix that means "before". When the states wanted to seceded, they should have allowed the Congress to prescribe the way in that the seceding states would have proven their secession.

[4CJ]

No, "pre" is a prefix that means "before". When the states wanted to seceded, they should have allowed the Congress to prescribe the way in that the seceding states would have proven their secession.

Ex post facto is Latin for after the fact. "Ante" means before. What you suggest is that the states would separately volunteer to join a political union, without having a specified method of leaving, and at best, having to submit plans for doing so to the other members and hopefully being allowed to leave with their permission.

This assertion is made in spite of the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union requiring unanimous consent to changes, and the Constitution's admission that 9 states seceding from the prior union would create the new one. Without any state having to petition for the right to withdraw.

There's a huge disconnect there.

[#3Fan]

Ex post facto is Latin for after the fact. "Ante" means before. What you suggest is that the states would separately volunteer to join a political union, without having a specified method of leaving, and at best, having to submit plans for doing so to the other members and hopefully being allowed to leave with their permission.

No, it's as simple as following Article IV. Any state wishing to secede has to allow Congress to determine the method of secession, not permission of secession.

This assertion is made in spite of the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union requiring unanimous consent to changes, and the Constitution's admission that 9 states seceding from the prior union would create the new one. Without any state having to petition for the right to withdraw.

I never said anything about petitioning.

There's a huge disconnect there.

You're not connecting with what I said.

[#3Fan]

"Ante" means before.

"Pre" means "before" also.