| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
Sorry, I figured you knew how to Google. Here is ex parte Milligan. This particular version of it has modern spellings. I can't give you a link to the text of Stidger's book. I don't think it is on the web, but you can purchase it at Amazon. I don't think Milligan was arrested for uttering the words I quoted, but he said them some time in 1864 before he was arrested.
i did.
if you did NOT, don't question the patriotism of those of us who DID.
allegience to and reverence for dixie and OUR sacred,bloodspattered battleflag is NOT being "anti-American", despite the HATEFILLED,arrogant,self-righteous STUPIDITY & LIES, promulgated out of the damnyankee-controlled "pubic screwl sistim".
fyi, YOU are a victim of those LIES & it makes you look like a DUNCE & an empty-head every time you post something as all-around DUMB as #3356.
free dixie,sw
Are you buying this whole "Texas declared war and captured a U-Boat" story? Are you buying that he's citing, by page number, a book he says he doesn't own and of which there's no trace anywhere, except as a four-page magazine article in 1972? The man makes things up to suit himself, and if, in this case, someone actually said what he claims they said, then they were out of line. But what Watie's said about me is way out of line.
why not "knock it off" & contribute something of VALUE to FR?
or you could head over to DU & waste their time.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Fine by me. Lets me spend more time discrediting what you say to others rather than simply responding to your increasingly hysterical attacks on me. Face it, Watie, I've busted you for lying once again. Please, anyone, do a Google search on Watie's "source" "Yachts Against Subs" by Gnaedinger
It would seem to me that you are mistaken. Santa Ana agreed to it per the Treaty of Velasco, which also had a provision requiring him to withdraw all Mexican troops to his side of the Rio Grande. Of course the Mexicans reneged on this almost immediately and renewed their efforts to reconquer Texas, but by that time Texas had already been welcomed into the community of nations whether Mexico liked it or not.
It is also false that the Mexicans acknowledged the Nueces River as their boundary with Texas. In fact they never even recognized Texas at all! In 1845 they still considered it a renegade province and were still trying to retake it. The Nueces River claim was nothing more than an arbitrary piece of specious nonsense they threw out after annexation in hopes of regaining the southern part of Texas since they knew they couldn't go up against the U.S. army. Thankfully General Taylor wasn't interested in playing their games.
The departing States didn't liquidate the Union. They merely withdrew themselves. They didn't need the consent of the full Union for that. They would have, if their purpose had been to abolish the Union entirely, but it wasn't. Each State's People spoke for themselves, and left the Union.
Their secession conventions were perfectly legal (Arkansas probably excepted), and their mode of withdrawal fully protected by the Constitution itself (Ninth and Tenth Amendments) -- as if they needed that, to speak and act for themselves, which they didn't, but nevertheless their acts were fully protected.
If you believe otherwise then by all means name one! Name a tax hike Lincoln opposed or a tax cut that Lincoln backed. There simply aren't any. There aren't any because Lincoln, unlike Reagan, was a lifelong adherant to the tax and spend philosophy.
Probably the title or the author is misspelt...... may have a look later when I get back from errands. Something to amuse oneself for a little bit, maybe, doing a fuzzy search of some kind. My cousin's wife is a research librarian, maybe I can charm her into sparing a few minutes (tho' she's working on her master's and is pretty fully occupied with her M.O.M. degree as well).
By all means, have at it. If it turns up, I'll learn a new place to reseach, because I did due diligence on this one.
First, though, you have to check this post by Watie last year which turned up in my first Google search of the title. (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1184555/posts, #36)
To: All
bet ya'll didn't know that the CG ARMED private fishing boats in the Chesapeake Bay AND provided arms (including water-cooled heavy MGs AND some "light deck guns", read CANNONS!) to the Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Texas (fyi,all TX gunboats are named/re-named for TX cities, when serving in wartime) and Virginia "state naval forces" (read:PRIVATEERS!), during WW2.
SOME of those fishing boats/yachts got into SHOOT-OUTS with German submarines & WON! all of the "privately-crewed gunboats did VALUABLE service to the war effort!
The CITY OF GOLIAD (formerly the 64-foot motor yacht, EEL) captured a U-boat in 1942 & towed it to Galveston,TX as a PRIZE OF WAR! (the U-boat is now berthed in the Galveston County Park.)
The CITY OF GONZALES (formerly the 88-foot sailing yawl, GRAY-HOUND)fought a 2-hour surface battle with another U-boat & SUNK the submarine, with a direct hit from a WW1-surplus ANTI-TANK GUN!
see the book YACHTS AGAINST SUBS by RAM(retired) L.B.N.Gnaedinger for more details! facinating book!
free dixie,sw
, So now we've got a title and an author. Search the author and the title on google and you get a reference to the magazine article in the USCG bibliography. So we can assume that the spelling of the author's name is accurate and that he did, indeed, write something that included the phrase "Yachts Against Subs," so the misspelling possibility diminishes. Search the University of Houston library website. Watie says that the book is availiable there. But it's not in their catalog. A title search for anything with the word "Yacht" or "Yachts" turns up nothing like Watie's book, and a search of the author's name yields a goose egg.. Search the Library of Congress site. No LBN Gnaedinger, no book called "Yachts Against Subs." So if you find this book, I'd like to know how you did it.
Thanks.
Lee's comments?
Not according to Lee it wasn't.
And the Mexican's repudiated the agreement that Santa Anna had made.
Compared to Democrates that means he was a conservative.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
Go find another litmus test.
Well, that is what the People should have done, not break up the Union through individual states.
You did not follow a constitutional means to deal with a constitutional problem.
do you have an ORIGIONAL SOURCE document for this quote?
free dixie,sw
EITHER would say or do anything to get more POWER.
BOTH were nothing more or less than CHEAP, scheming politicians & shyster lawyers.
had it been "popular" to promote cannibalism during their administrations, EITHER/BOTH would have come out for "the well-known benefits of consuming human flesh".
imVho, NEITHER deserves ANY of the hero worship bestowed on them by the left & popular media.
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.