Posted on 05/10/2010 3:17:06 PM PDT by Davy Buck
"If Lee was a traitor (and I don't believe he was), he would be the only traitor for which a ship in the United States Navy was ever named. He would be the only traitor in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol. He would be the only traitor whose image was used in a positive way to recruit military personnel to fight and win WWII. Quite an accomplishment for a "traitor", wouldn't you say. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Complete nonsense.
So the House passed a bill hostile to the South -- but it didn't do it without a hint of secession! [Note: there was no rebellion.]
Yes the House passed a tariff bill in the spring of 1860 without a hint of rebellion. [Note: there was no legal secession!]
Secession had been in the air ever since the North poured forth its tears on the grave of race-war fomenter John Brown, and cried out bitterly over his failure to instigate the slaughter of millions.
Again, complete nonsense.
I don't have my cc. of Rhett's "Appeal" and the Texas Declaration handy, but your singular emphasis on "expansion of slavery" (Lincoln's platform chestnut) is misleading and, I think, wittingly so.
Then by all means root around and dig them up. Add to them the Cornerstone Speech and the speeches of the various secession commissioners and you'll see just how slavery was the be all and end all of the Southern rebellion.
N-S: You mean your imaginative interpretation thereof, don't you?
Actually, I was referring to your Post #298 claim that "once a state has been allowed to join then the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in where a state may be a party." That is quite obviously not the case, given the specific written language of the Eleventh Amendment. And I found it rather amazing that you had never stumbled across that particular amendment in the course of your 'activities.'
No "imaginative interpretation" was required on my part - just the simple recognition that (once again) you don't know what you're talking about...
;>)
;>)
Oh, hell no! Especially not for you -- who do you think you are, assigning "homework"? You've had all that material posted to you before, so go sit on a stick shift.
Obnoxious little man!
Pompous twit.
You and Winston Smith, feeding the Memory Hole.
No, screw you -- I'm not ferreting out stuff you've seen before, repeatedly, over the last seven years.
And I have a few witnesses!
In the context that you present them they usually are.
You and Winston Smith, feeding the Memory Hole.
You and Napoleon the pig, creating the new world order.
No, screw you -- I'm not ferreting out stuff you've seen before, repeatedly, over the last seven years.
Such language. But par for the course from the Southron contingent.
And I have a few witnesses!
I'm sure that mojitojoe can produce chapter and verse, including everyone of my replies and the exact time I posted them. The man has a file on me that would do the KGB proud.
Of course, that is the yankee way..........
Ouch! Friendly fire hurts don't it?
I'll let you two 'geniuses' sort that out amongst yerselves (lol).
I believe the phrase "...and levying war against them" figures in that article, no?
After May 23, 1861, Robert E. Lee was a citizen of Virginia, but no longer a citizen of the United States.
Funny thing, though. He resigned his commission on April 20 and took command of Virginia's state forces three days later. Confederate army troops were already flooding into Virginia, federal arsenals had been seized, and there were plans to move the confederate capital to Richmond before Virginia got around to the formality of actually ratifying its secession on May 23.
Robert E. Lee was a citizen of Virginia, but no longer a citizen of the United States.
The United States saw it differently.
Remember too that in the 19th century, citizenship meant citizenship of a State, and that a person was a "U.S. citizen" only derivatively, because his home State was a part of the Union.
Nonsense. The US Constitution gave the federal government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically sets out the regulation for aliens to become citizens of the United States and says nothing about their citizenship being only incidental to their citizenship of a state.
TO DUMP_TRUCK!!
I was replying to you, idiot.
Jesus! Every time I think that you've pegged out the idiot meter damned if you don't move the peg and go even further.
Do you wait until a murderous bastard is inside your front door before you load your gun?
The United States saw it differently.
So what! The La Raza freaks see the southwest as part of Mexico but who cares!
Yeah, I know. The union waited until the murderous bastards had taken over the south half of the house and announced that that part of the house was now theirs before the US did anything about it.
So what! The La Raza freaks see the southwest as part of Mexico but who cares!
About the same number of people who see the southern United States as under some sort of occupation. In other words, a tiny lunatic fringe who are mostly laughed at rather than a genuine political movement with any sort of following.
No,you weren't. It was CVA who said 'I'll let Grant make my case..', then quoted the General. I simply responded by expanding the quote to give the folks who care about history some context.
You simply failed to follow/understand the conversation. No surprise here.
The FACT that Sherman burned his way through Georgia to terrorize the civilians.
<><><><<
This continues to puzzle me every time I read the sentiment expressed.
How do you end a war? You sap the enemy’s will and ability to conduct said war. That’s how it is done.
During WWII, we bombed the crap out of the enemy’s cities. I have never, not once, heard one of the south’s defenders on this forum suggest that it was evil to do so. And yet, Sherman was evil?
It really is whose ox is getting gored, I guess.
In the mind of the Yankee Coven the CS never left the US, Nice how easily the USA destroyed their own people. Can’t have it both ways....
Actually, better than you deserve - and once again you're completely wrong. "Language" that won't meet FreeRepublic standards is in reality 'par for the course from the Northern contingent' (please see Posts #375, 387, 389, and 390).
;>)
It's always entertaining to see one of you historical revisionists whine about irrefutable documentation...
;>)
What would the CSA have looked like if it had won its independence?
A government dominated by the planter aristocracy.
A plantation economy organized around a few export crops.
A racially deeply divided society with oppression of the servile caste and restrictions on freedom of expression.
Not really a place for freedom-lovers.
Being part of a larger country helped the South to overcome its problems.
That's obvious looking at the last fifty years or so.
Even today?
If you feel that way you must be in pretty sad shape.
C'mon, the South got its act together and it's doing fine now.
Why throw all that away for some silly pipe-dream?
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.