Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Gentleman, PERIOD.
Van Dorn had more than that at Pea ridge and was blown away. His army was destroyed.
Somehow I doubt that Grant ever said that 10,000 enemy were any kind of a threat.
Plenty of Rebels expected just that. They took off in all directions, especially Mexico and Egypt.
That may be the case and the custom now, where the justices exchange drafts and comments, and make revisions, but back in the 1850's, it was not the case. In fact, Taney would not even make a preliminary copy of the decision that he read available to Curtis. That is why the rule for prompt delivery to the Clerk existed.
"It's not the justices opinion until they are thru with it, and the final copy is published."
And the the majority/plurality opinion is the one which was reflects the voice of the Court and the vote on the issue.
Taney violated that rule to do exactly what the rule was meant to prohibit - Rewriting the opinion that had been voted on and delivered orally. Bad form ,Roger B. Dishonesty.
Gee, you keep changing the subject. The term "cop" is from England where it meant constable on patrol. It meant what we mean by duty officer.
Hardly the first. Jefferson, for one, threw it out when he purchased Louisiana.
As for the origin of "cop," you're just wrong.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cop2.htm
<[Q] From Billyboy Mackey: “Could you possibly tell me the origin of the slang term for policemen, cops?”
[A] Half a dozen explanations at least have been put forward for this one, including an acronym from “constable on patrol”, which is reminiscent of the story behind posh and quite certainly just as spurious. It is also said to come from the copper badges carried by New York City’s first police sergeants (patrolmen were alleged to have had brass ones and senior officers silver); it is almost as often said to refer to the supposedly copper buttons of the first London police force of the 1820s. Both these stories seem about equally unlikely.
The most probable explanation is that it comes from the slang verb cop, meaning “to seize”, originally a dialect term of northern England which by the beginning of the nineteenth century was known throughout the country. This can be followed back through the French caper to the Latin capere, “to seize, take”, from which we also get our capture.
The situation is complicated because there are—or have been—a number of other slang meanings for cop, including “to give somebody a blow”, and the phrase cop out, as an escape or retreat. Both of these may come from the Latin capere. But it’s suggested that another sense of cop, “to steal”, could come from the Dutch kapen, “to take or steal”. There’s also “to beware, take care”, an Anglo-Indian term from the Portuguese coprador, and phrases like “you’ll cop it!” (“you’ll be punished, you’ll get into trouble”), which could come from the idea of seizing or catching, but may be a variant of catch.
But the “seize; capture” origin for the police sense seems most plausible. So policemen are just those who catch or apprehend criminals, a worthy occupation. And a copper is someone who seizes, a usage first recorded in Britain in 1846.
You would have us believe that Mr. Sheperd, a "free person of colour", who could not vote in Virginia, be a member of the miltia in Virginia, and who could be expelled from the Commonwealth of Virginia altogether if the legislature decided to do so, had arrest powers over white people as part of an organization that wouldn't be established until over 60 years after he died? As our esteemed friends across the pond would say, pull the other one. It's got bells on it.
At least he could legally live there, which is more than could be said for most other states, and particularly those on the other side of the Ohio, at the time.
That would depend on the circumstances of his freedom wouldn't it, tu quoque boss? If he had been born a slave and freed some timr in the previous 50 years then legally he should have left the state or else he would have been liable to be sold back into slavery.
Apparently the Federal troops were ordered the night before the Texas troops came not to load their weapons or resist any large organized force attempting to take the facilities by force. To do so, IMO, might well have started the war and been the end of those Federal troops as well as the loss of all of their arms.
The Feds were aware that the armed force of Texans was coming. They appear to have had a better estimate (at least from the post-incident Federal correspondence) of the number of troops coming to San Antonio than the local newspaper had published the day before.
The Federal troops were awakened when the Texas troops started coming into the city at 4 AM. The Federal troops assembled and were told to stay in their quarters. A later report by their local officer noted that none of them could move without having several hundred guns pointed at them.
Twiggs negotiated that the Federal troops could take two batteries of light artillery with them, artillery that would have otherwise gone to the state whether Twiggs had chosen to fight or just acceded to the initial demand of the state.
If I remember the law correctly he would have had a year or more to move. Compare that with Illinois where staying more than about a week got you sent over to the indentured auction block.
Having been on several similar auto "safaris," both as a kid, and later as an adult with the kids in tow, I can appreciate your observations.
4CJ, you are condemned to remain "Amateur Hour" material unless you obtain your Capitan Juris Doctor degree. It requires rigorous training, but I thought perhaps I could offer a few pointers.
First you must learn to vehemently argue with an air of great authority about a court decision you have not read. For further guidance study the antics of capitan_refugio arguing the Mitchell case up until his #1370 where he states, "I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen."
Next, you must learn compound lying, where one attention-getting statement draws attention away from the accompanying whoppers. For example see capitan_refugio #1370 where he states, "I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen." The admission that he had not read Mitchell distracts you from realizing that there is no footnote and the cited description appears neither in any footnote nor in the Supreme Court decision in Hamdi nor in any court decision in any case. You just obtain a copy of a Petition for a Writ or any court pleading by any public defender and annoint it as the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Next, you must learn to simply deny the undeniable. For example, see capitan_refugio #237 "Bollman was not about habeas corpus."
Next, you must learn to do something completely ridiculous, for example quoting Mr. Carlisle, an attorney in the case of the Brilliante, and attributing it to the opinion of the Supreme Court in a different case, say the Amy Warwick. For lessons on how to do this, see capitan_refugio #649.
Next, you must learn to describe, with great conviction, a non-existent Supreme Court case. For example, the non-existent Supreme Court case of Lemmon v. The People, and blame the despicable non-existent result on the perfidy of Roger B. Taney. For an example, see capitan_refugio #386.
For extra credit, master the art of quoting a dissenting opinion as the opinion of the court.
Only when you have learned to demonstrate expertise such as described above, may you attain the Capitan Juris Doctor degree. With this degree, earned by said demonstrated expertise, you earn the right to call all others "Amateur Hour."
Good luck.
4CJ #1807 - "So in other words, your contention is that Fehrenbacher did NO ORIGINAL research, and simply relied on others?"
4CJ #1826 - "So again, your contention is that Fehrenbacher did not research the case, that he simply used the research of others, without any attempt at validating the information?"
Clarification ... or changing the subject? I made no such contention. Indeed, you will find that Fehrenbacher lists in his bibliography about every important published source concerning Taney and many unpublished personal papers, letters, etc. The issue of the 1818-19 case is illustative only to the extent that it bears on the "antislavery Taney myth," otherwise it has no bearing on the Dred Scott case. There is little or no reason why Fehrenbacher should have looked at the case; although it appears that he did. A good, concise researcher and writer will point the readers to the orignal supportive material that he has no intent on challenging.
Open your mind. Read the book.
I hear there are a couple of unreconstructed rebels there to this day!
Maybe it had something to do with some guy who said that he hoped for "malice toward none, with charity for all."
The slave owning families in the south were the ruling oligarchy. They tightly held the real power and were influential far beyond their numbers (which were about 30% of the population).
I believed I raised this hypothetical in the now-deleted 4,000+ post thread. As Virginia had not yet seceded when Twiggs capitulated, what do you think Twiggs' predecessor in the position might have done? The predecessor, of course, was Robert E. Lee.
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.