Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
stripped of "the slavery was all" (RADICAL REVISIONIST/LEFTIST) position, there is NO "grand crusade" to use as an EXCUSE for the slaughter of a MILLION Americans, except of course that "DIShonest abe" simply was not willing to let the south go free.
fwiw, unlike most here (including N-S, i suspect) i HAVE read the book & know what Dr Blackerby stated.
furthermore, either N-S lied about having read BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY (and therefore does NOT know what the book states) and/or he lied about what the author said.= there is NO middle ground between what Blackerby did & did NOT state concerning the number of Black CSA service members. the numbers "in question" is IN his book, for any reader to see.
further, N-S & the rest of "the DAMNyankee coven" are either too DISHONEST and/or too ignorant of the FACTS to refute anyone (NOT just me) on any subject. (Race, the FACT is that "you've thrown in with" a pack of LOSERS, bigots, nitwits & KNOWING liars, if you've taken their side. NOTE: the ones with the most disgusting/VULGAR/hate-FILLED comments toward the southerners on FR are the REAL idiots/BIGOTS.)
free dixie,sw
stripped of "the slavery was all" (RADICAL REVISIONIST/LEFTIST) position, there is NO "grand crusade" to use as an EXCUSE for the slaughter of a MILLION Americans, except of course that "DIShonest abe" simply was not willing to let the south go free.
fwiw, unlike most here (including N-S, i suspect) i HAVE read the book & know what Dr Blackerby stated.
furthermore, either N-S lied about having read BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY (and therefore does NOT know what the book states) and/or he lied about what the author said.= there is NO middle ground between what Blackerby did & did NOT state concerning the number of Black CSA service members. the numbers "in question" is IN his book, for any reader to see.
further, N-S & the rest of "the DAMNyankee coven" are either too DISHONEST and/or too ignorant of the FACTS to refute anyone (NOT just me) on any subject. (Race, the FACT is that "you've thrown in with" a pack of LOSERS, bigots, nitwits & KNOWING liars, if you've taken their side. NOTE: the ones with the most disgusting/VULGAR/hate-FILLED comments toward the southerners on FR are the REAL idiots/BIGOTS.)
free dixie,sw
SORRY for the multiple posts - this old, tired, PC does that sometimes.<P.free dixie,sw
like the CLAIMED "prohibition of secession", MOST of your other assertions are EQUALLY false & make you look SILLY.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
I like it when I twist your bigoted lying nipples so much!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
You are an immature small person with no self respect...or is it too much self respect??
Hmmm...
You abandoned me as a friend, remember?
You tossed me under the bus when I needed someone whom I previously trusted with confidential information, yet you chose to be a 7 letter word that begins with A and ends with HOLE
So dont act so self righteous, you tossed me as a friend.
Two subjects - the Constitution and knowledge - that are totally foreign to central_va.
Where's the book you moron? So you can prove what you've been blathering about all this time.
Damn, Mortie. Once would have been enough but three times? You strike me as the kind of guy who loves listening to his own words.
Where's the damned book, Mortie?
I’m sorry to hear that. Betrayal is never pretty, but I would submit that you are better off knowing where you really stand against a cur like Squattie.
You know what they say, “With friends like Squattie who needs enemas”...
You certainly did need help with making a weak and superficial point sound relevant.
You repeat in presenting the US Census taker directions and data recording sheets.
Your point and logic rest upon your own personal assertion that the census did not reveal other information simply because it did not ask for it.
The implied conclusion that obviously no other data would exist is wrong.
You well know and are obviously ignoring the fact that historians since that time have researched the actual paperwork and found references and information beyond the simple directions on which you rest your weak logic.
Numerous historians reference the census to provide the underpinning of their research.
Are you calling them liars?
"Adams became the first congressman to assert the right of the government to free slaves during time of war. President Abraham Lincoln based the Emancipation Proclamation on Adams's arguments."
"It was Adams who, in 1836, first asserted that the U.S. Army could liberate rebellious slaves in time of war:
"The ideas of Adams found their first practical application in 1838 with Jesup's offer of freedom [freeing black Seminoles in Florida]. The Congressman died before he could see their second application in 1861. That was when Adams' former protégé, Senator Charles Sumner, set to work persuading President Abraham Lincoln that under the war powers he had a constitutional right to emancipate southern slaves."
Wikipedia on John Quincy Adams
"Although there is no indication that the two were close, Adams met Abraham Lincoln during the latter's sole term as a member of the House of Representatives, from 1847 until Adams' death. Thus, it has been suggested that Adams is the only major figure in American history who knew both the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln"
The official death toll for the Civil War was around 625,000. The numbers of innocent civilians killed is said to be quite small -- somewhere between a few dozen and less than 1,000. But there are no actual numbers I can find to tally any civilian deaths.
The suggestion of nearly 400,000 civilian deaths is beyond comprehension, and demands some evidence supporting it.
Here's what I came up with:
Taxes are always too high, and they were no higher at the end of 1860 than they had been previously, so obviously, taxes had nothing to do with secession.
So, what did change at the end of 1860? Clearly and obviously -- the candidate of the Republican abolition party was elected President. Many in the South warned ahead of time: if abolitionist Lincoln were elected the South would secede. So abolitionist Lincoln was elected, and the South seceded starting before Lincoln even took office. It's that simple.
Pal, I'd say you have a serious personal problem if you can look these facts in the face and still claim that slavery had nothing to do with it, or less to do than anything else. The election of an abolitionist President in 1860 was the only thing that had changed, so slavery was the only real reason.
lentulusgracchus: "Yes I did, and I shoved it down your throat."
And what was your answer?
And you did take Philosophy 101, and passed it? I'd be impressed, but find that hard to believe -- since after all, you didn't even read what I wrote there, did you?
So, let's take a more careful look at my sentence, and see if you can point out to me which part is false:
BJK:"you'd be hard pressed..."
By that I mean: it would be difficult for you. The proof of how difficult it would be is that you've never done it, have you, despite endless attempts, right?
BJK: "...to convince most Americans..."
By that I mean: the majority of Americans, north and south, not just your lost causer buddies. Again, the proof is, you've never done it. And it's the majority of Americans who vote for our leaders, to make such decisions as stay or secede, peace or war, etc.
BJK: "...that slavery and secession are actually two distinct issues."
Of course, you believe they are two distinct issues, but most Americans do not, and your arguments have been decidedly unpersuasive to them, so far.
But I'd like to learn more about your Phil 101 class -- who was your instructor, and did he(she?) really tell you that you could defeat any argument whatsoever simply by declaring it "invalid." I probably want to talk to that instructor, see if I can point out the errors of his ways... ;-)
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.