Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
in point of fact, had lincoln , the UNjust, started hanging ex-CSA personnel, he would have had a MASSIVE guerrilla war to fight, which the partisans might well have WON.
free dixie,sw
When the colonists declared independence from the British, the colonies seemed to act as if they believed all publicly owned property within their state belonged to their state and not to the Crown. This is the natural order of things when there is a change of territorial jurisdiction. The precedent you seek would be the history of the world.
may ALMIGHTY GOD hold ALL our service members in the protection of his sheltering arms!
we, at our house, pray daily for their safety.
btw, my landlady's husband, Frank __________, MAJ/USAJAGC, just returned from another tour in Iraq.
he estimates that there are about 10,000 committed fighters in the so-called "iraqi resistence";of those he says there MAY be as many as 7-8,000 FOREIGN fighters! and he says there MAY be another 8-10,0000 local "hangers on".
further,Frank says that the "quagmire of iraq" is a FIGMENT of the mainSLIME media's imagination". he says : WE ARE WINNING over there.
so much for the DIMocRATS "popular uprising" theory!
free dixie,sw
go argue with them, PLEASE!
free dixie,sw
One side of the equation held that secession was lawful. One side of the equation does not determine what the law is. One side may use military force to impose its will upon the other and then declare itself to be virtuous and right. That particular argument is called "might makes right."
this was supposed to have been an "aside", which SOME here might find interesting. nothing more;nothing less.
free dixie,sw
Regarding his job, I'm perfectly open to being proved wrong on that count. I'd be fascinated to hear how a black man in antebellum Virginia managed to flout the 1831 laws to such an extent that he actually had powers of arrest and presumably could testify in court against white men. That would seem such a remarkable thing that there would be a little more information about it. Alas, I can find none.
As for the COP thing, you're really going to have to explain, then, why the word "cop" and "copper" shows up in England before it shows up in the US.
And remember, just blustering about it without evidence just shows that you're bluffing.
So, have you contacted Dr. Lubar to prove that I've lied or misrepresented what he said yet? If you haven't, I want an apology for your accusation.
To quote GOPCapitalist, "I''m amused at how willing you are to take your history lessons out of the unsourced snippets of a bureaucracy," Of course, the VA State Police are noted for their etymological investigatory skills. On the other hand, you might want to consult some actual academic etymologists, who tell us that there aren't any acronymic origins for words before the 20th Century.
Unfortunately, nolu chan is ignorant and dishonest, as always. You neglect to add that Fehrenbacher's conclusion "is partly confirmed by more definite evidence in the national Archives, where two different sets of page proofs of the Taney opinion have been preserved. Handwritten additions to the proofs constitute about eight pages of the version finally published."
I listed in the previous post, three passages identified by Fehrenbacher with significant changes or additions. The exists additional evidence that these were just the last of the changes made by Taney after sending the opinion to the printer. Fehrenbacher concludes, "It therefore appears that Curtis was substantially correct in his critique of the published opinion."
In other words, what was on the ground within their own boundaries belonged to the respective countries.
No, I'll argue with you because as usual you are making wild-ass claims that have no basis in fact.
No, in other words who owned the property was agreed to by both parties.
That's correct. And nobody else held that their actions were lawful. Not the North. Not Great Britain. Nobody.
And yet the final ownership was not settled until the Treaty of Paris was negotiated and signed by both sides. I would also point out that when the colonists declared independence that they expected to fight for their freedom. They didn't expect to grab what they wanted, shoot up wasn't given up on demand, and walk away. Unlike the confederates.
once again I'm NOT.
Lincoln was first and foremost a Traitor to the very constitution he had sworn to uphold and defend.
Even if I earned such, it would never be enough - the bar is ALWAYS raised by the other side.
Clarification. Otherwise, you might have thought I was talking about tiddlywinks. I wanted to ensure that you understood I was referring to Taney's defense of Rev. Gruber, and that the trial was in 1819, not 1818. Your reply blamed the discrepancy of the dates thusly, "you can blame Carl Swisher". Such a reply indicates the Fehrenbacher simply used the material from Swisher without attempting to validate the information. This was not a court decision, it was not argued before the bench with a resulting opinion. The trial by jury began 10 Mar 1819.
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 original supportive material that he has no intent on challenging.
Obviously Taney's condemnation of slavery and defense of an abolitionist minister doesn't agree with Fehrenbacher's bias, so it's no wonder why Fehrenbacher didn't fully investigate the case.
No argument here, Brother....you are preaching to the choir! :)
The guy is downright incorrigable. He wantonly attached extraneous material to four separate court decisions and made up a union victory in battle at Fort Davis out of thin air, yet has the audacity to claim that none of his posts are deceptive?!?!?! How many times is it gonna take? I feel like i'm watching Mary Mapes!
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.