Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[stand watie]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

free dixie NOW,sw

[stand watie]

you'd have to have a microscope to see us, but PPM & i are IN that pix!

i was proud of all our lads/ladies that wonderful day! it was a GOODIE!

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

It's humorous how even those adverse to the 16th President take him everywhere. :)

[Gianni]

Yeah, you've posted the Stephens speech, or at least your excerpts from it, about a dozen times now. We're still not impressed.

What I've asked you for, is to back up your assertion that the founders were against slavery and demonstrated it by passing the NWO.

Which founders were in the 2nd CC?

How did they vote on the NWO?

Was Stephens in the 2nd CC? Did he sit behind these "founders" that you're claiming introduced and supported the NWO, and look at their notes over their shoulders?

Instead you have continued to make even more outlandish claims, like the end of slavery (demonstrably due to economic factors) was testament somehow to the founders intents or wishes. Can you provide any evidence that the founders personally worked toward the end of slavery, other than lip service? Can you explain how someone working toward the end of slavery codified it into the charter for a new country and held it's government accountable for return of fugitives?

Enlighten us.

[M. Espinola]

Show a little...

Respect

[Gianni]

Alright I must have missed something here, specifically the 'illegal and immoral' part. Scott may have believed in the right of secession, but that doesn't make him right and Lincoln wrong.

According to Non-sequitur, Scott thought it was both moral and legal to deny the rights of the Southerners?

The fact one or more members of the cabinet disagreed with Lincoln is also meaningless.

Now this is more what I expected of you. Back to your roots, all hail King Lincoln!

[Non-Sequitur]

According to Non-sequitur, Scott thought it was both moral and legal to deny the rights of the Southerners?

So where does Scott say that Lincoln was denying the rights of southerners. You keep putting words into his mouth without any evidence that they belong there.

Now this is more what I expected of you. Back to your roots, all hail King Lincoln!

At least one member of Davis's cabinet disagreed with him. All hail King Jeff?

[Gianni]

So where does Scott say that Lincoln was denying the rights of southerners.

He believed in the right of a state to seceed. He also believed that it was justifiable to deny it to maintain territorial continuity. It's the sort of principled stand that I expect from Lincoln's closest advisors.

At least one member of Davis's cabinet disagreed with him. All hail King Jeff?

I never said that Davis' subordinates had a responsibility to carry out his wishes regardless of whether or not they thought them immoral or illegal. That was your bailywick.

[Gianni]

Scott may 'rejected the idea if invading a seceded state' but your own post says he agreed with the need to maintain posession of the forts and reinforce them as necessary.

By the way, I must've let that slip the first time. He thought the forts should be reinforced until such time secession was determined. That action would be appropriate, in case the tide turned the other way and the legislature found itself making application for federal help to stave the minority secessionists. Once the die was cast, your story doesn't hold water.

[Non-Sequitur]

It's the sort of principled stand that I expect from Lincoln's closest advisors.

This was the advisor that you first claimed believed Lincoln's orders were illegal and immoral. Now you complain about his stand. I swear, you're never happy.

I never said that Davis' subordinates had a responsibility to carry out his wishes regardless of whether or not they thought them immoral or illegal. That was your bailywick.

You criticized Lincoln for taking actions his cabinet disagreed with. "All hail King Lincoln" you said. So again, all hail King Jeff?

[Non-Sequitur]

He thought the forts should be reinforced until such time secession was determined.

So when was secession determined?

[Gianni]

You criticized Lincoln for

I see your disconnect, I was criticizing you.

[Gianni]

For SC, it was Dec 20, 1860.

[Non-Sequitur]

For SC, it was Dec 20, 1860.

Obviously Scott did not agree with you, since he was trying to reinforce Sumter in January 1861. So when do you think HE thought secession had been determined?

[M. Espinola]

~ Belle of Richmond ~

'This cartoon from Harper's Weekly presented a disarmed and thoroughly cowed Davis surrounded by mocking Union soldiers. Not only is Davis wearing a dress and bonnet, he carries a hatbox marked "C.S." for Confederate States, suggesting that not only Davis himself but the entire Confederacy was characterized by feminine attributes.' Source: Harper's Weekly, May 27th, 1865.

[stand watie]

as usual, your DUMB post illustrates that you are a dumb-bunny.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

perhaps you should post information that shows YOURSELF respect, rather than post the bilge & blather that is your usual fare.

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

[stand watie]

yet another DUMBbunny post from FR's very own self-important FOOL & southHATER.

why not head over to DU with the other cretins??? Walt will WELCOME you.

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

It's almost that special day dog.

Are you ready?