Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
And here I was in the process of writing a sincere reply to your other post - and then you go and slander me.
Squat To Pee, if it were anyone else that accused me of racism I’d stomp their miserable azz. Since it’s you, since you are clearly retarded or delusional, and since you couldn’t provide a scintilla of evidence to prove your case if your pathetic life depended on it I’ll just say....up yours bigot.
Like I said, what documentary proof would satisfy you? You're the one who demanded it. What form do you want it to take?
it's your claim, NITWIT, so the "burden of proof" is on you.
And my evidence is the first appearance of it under my name on December 11, 2007, with a provided link. You made the claim that others have claimed authorship. The burden of proof for that is on you. Provide linkis. Or maybe it's on a U-boat in Galveston.
Maybe you can tell us all who Maryelissa Tyrona Brown-Bollin is. Do you know? You don't, do you?
In the meantime, here's a fun blast from the past:
"William Clarke Quantrell was born in New York City"--Stand Watie, 6.29.00"New York City's Dept. of Stastics has W.C. Quantrell's origional birth certificate on file. It states that Colonel Quantrell was born in Queens." --Stand Watie, 6.29.00
"Colonel Quantrell (the proper spelling of his name, per his official NY state birth certificate"--Stand Watie, 2.22.01
"Our own Colonel William C. Quantrell, born in NYC" --Stand Watie, 7.9.00
"FYI, the colonel's actual name was COL(MO State Troops, not PA,CSA!)William Clarke QUANTRELL. he was born & died bearing that name, per both his birth certificate (from Brooklyn,NY!) and his death certificate."--Stand Watie, 3.31.01
"did i say that COL Quantrell was BORN in NYC??? (i did NOT.):--Stand Watie, 10.13.07
And yet they also had to "reintegrate" them under a new formula, which included impairments to voting rights, and the introduction of a new electorate that was presumed (and educated) to vote adverse to the interests of Southern whites, and in favor of those of Northern whites.
And of course, to stay south of Mason-Dixon while doing so.
Not so, and your shouting while saying so -- and quoting wiki written by Leftist contributors -- doesn't make it so.
This is a great example of people talking past each other. You've completely misunderstood the point being made in the first place. Let's review the argument, before people started contributing unhelpful but colorful comments about full-body Faraday cages.
Original post and point:
[Me] The implication here is that, from the beginning, the Republican Party was a political crusade undertaken on a platform that included a secret war plank.
[4CJ] The big government socialists, aka Whigs then Republicans, had to divest the federal congress of the true conservatives, aka Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. True, given another 20-30 years with an ever increasing majority the northeast would have political controul of the Union, but Lincoln and his ilk were too impatient to wait.....
221 posted on Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:23:57 PM by 4CJ
And here's the red herring that misses the point:
Nonsense. Even with 50 states today, 15 slave states could block any amendment to end slavery....
240 posted on Monday, June 15, 2009 6:15:10 AM by Ditto
To which 4CJ pointed out,
Nonsense - those states ratified an amendment to end slavery.
242 posted on Monday, June 15, 2009 7:14:54 AM by 4CJ
I've got to cut this short and go do some things, but the short argument here is this:
4CJ and I were discussing the fact that, under the Constitution, Lincoln and the Republicans, even with full control of the federal government, could not legally disestablish slavery, said disestablishment being one of their desiderata. (Let's not forget all the money, power, empire, trade-fleecing, continent-stripping, and other goodies completely. It's why, after all, the Eastern business interest came to the party -- not because they'd read Harriet Beecher Stowe.)
To accomplish their goals, the Republicans had to disable the opposition of the Democrats, particularly the Southern Democrats. War allowed them to do this, to reorganize the Southern States by force of arms, something they could not have done in time of peace. They could take control of the Southern state governments and societies and dictate to them.
4CJ patiently explained to you that that was exactly what happened -- that the Southern States, under Republican control, did in fact ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They would not willingly have done so had the majority of their citizens not been declared civilly impaired by the triumphant Republican government.
NOW do you get it?
Our contributing friend upthread who mentioned the Lincoln connection to John Quincy Adams and Adams's comments about reorganizing the South after a war, may have just handed us the key to understanding the real origins of the Civil War. That may be the missing piece.
One last point. 4CJ's point about "gay marriage" </cant> is germane after all.
The Human Rights Campaign's strategy for the last 20 years has been to bring a "civil rights" case under Article IV's Full Faith and Credit clause, to force the unwilling States of the Union to recognize homosexual "marriages" performed in one insane State as valid, despite state laws and constitutions (following the Supremacy Clause) in all the other States.
Our friend's point is that, after the passage of a number of years in control of both Houses and the Presidency, the Republican Party, having appointed a majority of Supreme Court and lower-court judges, might have been able to look forward to some sort of activist ruling in a landmark case to impair the ability of the Southern States to resist federal statutes restricting, impeding, and finally purporting to abolish the institution of slavery.
The same thing is true of the other great issues separating the North and South in 1860: trade, the Tariff, admission of new States, the relations between federal and state governments and constitutions, and so on. The Republicans wanted, after all, a transformation of the Union itself, in order to create the transparent but protected continuum of transcontinental business and expansion that they wanted for their industrial audience.
It would have played out over generations, as has the current "human rights campaign" of the homosexual subminority, but this transformation, which overshadowed the slavery issue, would have been something in prospect, that Robert Rhett refers to in his call to the other States, that the South would have had to worry about had they listened to Alexander Stephens and decided not to secede in 1861.
the TRUTH is that you are a LOUD-mouthed, SELF-important little nobody, who likely couldn't whip my 17YO niece. = in other words, you are ALL mouth. (it has been my long experience that "worldwidewierd bullies", like you, are "really tough" right up until someone actually calls their bluff & then they run away "with tail firmly tucked between their legs".)
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
You’re welcome to call my bluff anytime you can borrow somebodies balls Squat to Pee, but leave your niece out of it (does she really like whips?!)
thus, when your "alias" showed up on the forum means ZILCH, especially since you told me that you "used to be" another (PERMANENTLY BANNED) FReeper.
add to that that you are WELL-KNOWN on FR to be a SERIAL & shame-LESS LIAR & any "neutral observer" would also wonder about you & the other members of "the coven".
free dixie,sw
out of curiousity, are you a "clone" or "a name on a list"??? - see #368.
free dixie,sw
non, you can chase around all you like on the census format. And you can ask all the rhetorical questions you like.
Writers such as Orville Burton found data in the census records sufficient enough to obtain marriage and family trends. Look him up and see.
Your claim that slave marriages were not documented is pure nonsense.
4CJ and I were not disputing the point that the Republicans didn't have enough States to amend the Constitution without the South. We agree with you now .... I realize in the past, we've wondered out loud if the strategy were not, as Lincoln did with respect to Nevada and West Virginia, to introduce a host of smallish Western States to the Union for that purpose, of creating a 3/4's Unionist, freesoil majority of States so that the Republicans could indeed abolish slavery everywhere by amendment.
That is not what we are arguing now. We agree the Republicans couldn't amend the Constitution without the Southern States.
That is why the South had to be broken militarily and reorganized by force, in order to overhaul the Constitution extraconstitutionally, without the People's consent, and recast the Union as a centralized national government, owned by a triumphant political and economic coterie, with vestigial appendages called (small-"s") states.
Well gosh Squat to Pee, I guess you don’t have the brass to follow though. Now that we have that firmly established (actually we knew all along you preferred to let the womenfolk do your dirty work - that is up until you ran ‘em all off) let’s move on to more serious matters.
About your niece, does she wear heels when she uses her whip?
Who is Maryelissa Tyrona Brown-Bollin?
lentulusgracchus: "Not so, and your shouting while saying so -- and quoting wiki written by Leftist contributors -- doesn't make it so."
Well, now I'm delighted to learn that you object to SHOUTING. Do you also object to SHOUTING by our rebel posters?
And I note your objection to a few words from Wikipedia.
But would you also object to reading the actual "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"?
Here's my question: Which part of South Carolina's Declaration does NOT relate to slavery?
Here's that Wiki link again:Wiki on Civil War:
"South Carolina did more to advance nullification and secession than any other Southern state. South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. All of the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery."
Let me repeat the point, because I think it's important:
Our Founding Fathers, from Franklin & Adams to Washington, Jefferson & Madison all understood that slavery was a huge problem in a country founded on the ideal that "all men are created equal..." They even made provisions in the Constitution to stop the slave trade, though that was as far as they could go then.
But there were only three possible ways to end slavery:
So, if you think about it, a War of Southern Rebellion was the only possible way to eliminate slavery. Slavery was the reason the South seceded, and along with preserving the Union, abolishing slavery was the reason the North fought on to victory.
It's been a while since I read "In My Father's House" so I'll have to see if I can dig up a copy and see if your exaggerating. Again.
Your claim that slave marriages were not documented is pure nonsense.
Your claim that they are documented by the census is not supported by any evidence you've offered to date.
free dixie,sw
otoh, the other 90+% of southerners/northerners could not have cared less about slavery, "the plight of the slaves" and/or "the peculiar institution". that is fact. (further, in many cases the southern slave-owners were "collaborators with" the invading DAMNyankee army, as they were promised by members of "the union high command" that their ownership of slaves would be permanently protected. ===> IF the south had won our war for independence, the slave-owning collaborators might well have been NEXT on the list of dixie enemies. - NATURE is UNKIND to turncoats/collaborators.)
furthermore, many of the NORTHERN slave-owners were sure (right up to the passage of the 13th Amendment) that they would be able to keep "their human chattels" forever.
in other words, what you "learned" in school reference slavery & TWBTS is a pack of sanctimonious, knowing, SELF-righteous lies & nothing more than that. (frankly, anyone who believes that nonsense is "not overburdened with gray matter".)
the facts are that NOBODY's hands were CLEAN on the "peculiar institution".
as i said in an earlier post, "things are simple only to simpletons".
free dixie,sw
Yes, because Wiki articles are often written by Leftists trying to score, as for example in the original article their termites wrote and submitted about Free Republic. They used the words "hate site" to describe FR, and they were playing for keeps. Some dedicated FReepers engaged these Code Pink scum and managed, despite serious game-playing with what constituted "evidentiary support" and so on by the scumthrowers, to get the offensive characterization of FR removed.
The article you cite and quote is in fact Northern triumphalist propaganda of the sort usually advanced by Marxists "doing" Civil War history for their own purposes. That anyone on FR should help scum like that try to split the conservative cause and the Republican Party is disgraceful.
You are aware, aren't you, of the continuing liberal intellectual war against the conservative wing of the GOP, which is unfolding even now as Obama and his Obamarrhoids recruit East Coast RiNO senators to serve as Obama's cabinet officers and agency heads, and to cross the aisle to the Party of the Submarine Captains, KGB collaborators*, and Riot Organizers?
* A researcher who took advantage a few years ago of Boris Yeltsin's opening of the KGB archives to historical researchers (see e.g. the recent PBS special on Joseph Stalin's secret diplomacy during World War II) was able to identify Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., as a KGB source of several documents and participant in compromising meetings with high Soviet officials including General Secretary Yuri Andropov. Among Tunney's services to the KGB was an incisive description of then-candidate Jimmy Carter and his principal staffers and how their organization worked, written in 1976 even while the Carter primary campaign was still underway.
furthermore, IF you believe that the REVISIONIST lunatics are correct about the causes of the war, the death of a MILLION Americans (many thousands of the dead were Blacks, both slave & freeman) "to free the slaves" seems a REALLY high price to end slavery a few (perhaps as few as 5-10 years) early.
it is difficult to enjoy your "freedom" if you were MURDERED by the DAMNyankee army!!!
free dixie,sw
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.