Reb’s do attract allot of good looking females.
Odd, girls like men that fight their own battles - unlike - The chickenshits up in yankeeland...
Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
Not nearly enough.
Reb’s do attract allot of good looking females.
Odd, girls like men that fight their own battles - unlike - The chickenshits up in yankeeland...
LOL! I see the concept of metaphor is lost on you.
Of course.
As with almost everything associated with the War Between the States you can find quotes that support both views. Rebels who were horrified at the thought and those who petitioned for it.
Sure you can.
Gen. Lee was anxious to receive regiments of black soldiers.
Of course he was. From a January 1865 letter: "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population."
I think if you insert the work “Union” before the word “combat” it becomes easier to understand.
Except that it's hard to find examples where the rebel army shot down white Union troops rather than allow them to surrender. Their record of doing that against black Union troops is quite different. Why the difference if not for the fact that the idea of an armed black man opposing them was something they couldn't stomach?
Only you would be surprised that someone would not go chasing off to read fodder for which you yourself would claim no veracity.
Seriously, that surprises you? LOL.
So you admit that the statue is metaphor and not an accurate portrayal? Or is it just the parts that advance your agenda that are to be taken as absolutely accurate?
And yet my side won the war and your side lost. Maybe your women would have done better.
Especially when it contradicts your preconceived notions and when you have nothing to refute it with.
Seriously, that surprises you? LOL.
Well, no. I guess not.
I would love wrapping that flag around me.
Our northern antagonists just got all excited, thinking I said “fag” and for once were going to agree with me.
No. I will not refute websites which you post and then won’t vouch for.
I’m just not stupid like you, I guess.
Here’s a web site I can’t vouch for. Now, demonstrate to me how to be a dumbass and go and refute all that is posted there. Go on. Show me how to do it SFB.
You guys really are obsessed with gays, aren't you?
And yet your side sent immigrants to fight your war.Maybe you should ‘grow a pair’ next time.
Go drool,fag boy.
Oh, go put on some butternut and make some black powder smoke.
What state did you say you live in?
Parking lot.
General welfare clause, implied powers, Commerce Clause -- and screw you!
My side was the one that immigrants wanted to come to. European immigration to the south was miniscule compared to the north for decades before the war because immigrants can't compete with slaves. Of course we had more immigrants.
One of my ancestors, by the way, was among those immigrants.
Oh I think you're demonstrating that well enough on your own.
Lentullusgracchus complains about Grant being a drunk and Idabilly complains about the army being full of immigrants. It must be embarrassing as hell to have lost to a lush leading a bunch of foreigners.
Want a rematch? I sure in the hell do...
I will not be reconstructed
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.