Posted on 11/03/2004 8:24:39 AM PST by Always Right
My history books said the south lost the Civil War, but apparently that was just a battle. The south lost the battle of 1861-1865, but now are winning the war.
Excuse the map, I could not find one that had all the states colored in.
She didn't say her husband was a member of The Party Of Lincoln, any more than she said he was a member of The Party Of Roosevelt. She merely mentioned them. I suppose Hitlery probably mentioned them at some point in time. Does that make Slick Willie a member of The Party Of Lincoln?
As everything you post is false, I take it you voted for Kerry/Edwards.
A moronic statement - but fitting that you posted it.
Hello newbie. I find it amusing that you're sick of the whole North/South thing before you've even managed to learn anything about it. Must be the result of a liberal yankee education. I'm one of those Republicans living in the North, and I can attest to the fact that I'm surrounded by liberals like you. The county I live in is mostly Republican, but the whole surrounding area is Kerry-Country. If you don't believe me, take a look at the red and blue map. How many Yankee states voted for Bush? When the North integrates like the South has, then maybe you'll come up with something intelligent to say on the subject of racism. The North will remain racist and segregated as long as yankees continue to deny the truth.
The irony is that when Clinton won TWICE, conservatives did not talk of secession. Conservatives talked of doing a better job next time.
The libwakos are discussing cultural divides but are missing the fact that their MSM myopic worldview is a significant minority.
According to fox 53% approval ratings for Bush was from those who voted. This suggests the 49% put out by the MSM was a spin number to help kerry.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Why would any lobbyist talk or give money to a democrat (gay) party member? Republicans hold the purse strings.
I cannot account for your errors.
Webster's College Dictionary -
\ capture: 1. to take by force or stratagem; take prisoner; seize; apprehend. 2. to gain control of or exert influence over. 3. to take possession of.
Seems like none of the three most common usages of the word require the use of force, although definition one allows it. You should work on your vocabulary.
[GOPcap #155] You also attempted to pass off extraneous material and dissents as the case ruling on four or five different cases. I don't recall many retraction or apologies for those, though you certainly attempted to escape culpability through drawn out semantics arguments.
[nc] I recall it quite well.
In cr #384 you purported three quotes to be about Scott v. Sandford which were about the case of Scott v. Emerson. Two of the quotes were from Chapter 10 "Versus Emerson." See nc #389.
When speaking about Lemmon v. The People, at cr #386 you regaled us with this mush: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed 'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence."
The Lemmon case never went to the Supreme Court. Fehrenbacher makes that point clear at page 445. Regarding Lemmon, the Supreme Court did not overturn anything. The actual decision, which ended in the highest court of New York, held that the slaves were free and they remained free. They were in New York when the matter was brought to court in New York, and New York law was applied. Every point you made was false.
[capitan_refugio #151 to GOPcap 11/05/2004] I did not "make up" any Supreme Court decisions. I mistook a New York case for a USSC case and posted a retraction the next day. That is what honest posters do. Dishonest posters, like yourself, only tell the half-truth.
[capitan_refugio #526 09/01/2004] "I remembered Lemmon was a sojourn and transit case regarding New York. And I recall there was SC case that foreshadowed . When I have time, I'll figure out which one that was."
No, capitan_kerryfugio, you did not post a retraction, you substituted a different lie. That is what dishonest posters do. As a substitute for the non-existent SCOTUS case of Lemmon v. The People, you substituted a different non-specific yet still non-existent SCOTUS case. As was to be expected, you have yet to "figure out which one that was." I previously provided you with a link to a complete list of all SCOTUS case citations from 1790 to 1862 and challenged you to cite the case. As was to be expected, you simply moved to another thread.
Citations of ALL SCOTUS cases 1790-1862
There is the link again. Cite the case.
In cr #649 you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. You continued, in your words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."
In this case you quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of your purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.
Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.
-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004
[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.
The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.
All of the findings attributed to the Court are arguments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.
On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 650] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 650.
| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |
[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court - Mr. Grier] pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Nelson] pp. 682 - 699.
[cr #1279 -- 09/16/2004 11:39:32 PM CDT]
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell.
[cr #1370 -- 09/18/2004 12:20:00 AM CDT]
I have not read Mitchell but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen.
[nc #1402 -- 09/18/2004 6:26:43 AM CDT]
I proved with images and links that the quote was not from the Hamdi decision as alleged on 9/16/2004 and I proved it was not from a footnote as alleged on 9/18/2004. I proved it was from the main text of a Petition for a Writ of Cert.
[capitan_refugio #1462 09/19/2004 12:17:17 AM CDT]
Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal.
No capitan. The images shown in my #1402 prove beyond a doubt that the Petition for a Writ of Cert cannot be mistaken for either the decision or the dissent. It looks nothing like a decision of the Supreme Court. It bears no resemblance to a court decision. It looks nothing like any court decision on FINDLAW. Court decisions on FINDLAW are single-spaced in HTML. This Petition was double-spaced in PDF.
It is text in a Petition for a Writ of Cert by a Public Defender spanning the width of the page, ending page 24 and continuing on page 25. It bears no resemblance to any footnote ever seen in a court decision or elsewhere.;
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT BY PUBLIC DEFENDER
HAMDI DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT
[capitan_kerryfugio #703] There have been no contradictory claims on my part.
"By 1984, I was prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns, by the Hatch Act."
-- cr #1804 06/02/2004"I worked in Reagan's campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 1984."
-- cr #412 10/24/2004
All would require a coercive exertion or inference though as the act of capture entails that the captive does not willingly consent to the act. He may go peacefully or he may go with a fight but consent is not present in an act of capture. But back to Fort Davis, considering that there was nobody around the fort to either consent or have it unwillingly taken from them by any means, a capture could not have happened.
Correcting your errors is getting tedious. Of Canby's force, over 2/3rds were militia. He had only about 1,200 regulars. The militia included the the 1st Colorado Volunteer Militia ("Pike's Peakers") and the New Mexico Volunteers (both part of Slough's column), and the New Mexico territorial militia. Carelton's column, approaching from California was almost completely volunteers, except for the artillery, I believe.
At Valverde Canby's force was about half regulars. At Glorieta Pass, he had many more irregulars, as well as regular and volunteer cavalry.
When you picture him in your mind, doesn't it just make you want to jerk his chain?
I thought it was "southron"!?
Vivid imagination. They have a very high opinion of themselves, don't they?
Militias operate under a state-run structure and continue to do so unless called up into the federal forces, at which point they are either retained and organized along with the regulars or employed for a temporary period before reverting to state militia commands.
Also, there was no unit officially called the "1st Colorado Volunteer Militia" though there was a "1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry" leading me to believe that you supplanted the word "militia" into their name in yet another attempt to bolster your argument by deception. I suppose now you will pursue a semantical argument in which an obscure nuanced non-standard definition of "militia" that means "infantry" applies rather than the normal one.
They truly are in deep denial, aren't they?
I wish we had a conservative in the White House, but that ain't going to happen. I'd be happy with a Reagan Republican in the White House, one who believed in fiscal responsiblity and a smaller and less intrusive government, but that ain't gonna happen either. Cuz da SOUTH is in charge now.
New Mexico Territory
New Mexico played a small but significant role in the Civil War. Early in the war, the Confederacy wanted the gold fields of California and Colorado as well as the important commercial route of the Santa Fe Trail. In July, 1861, Confederate forces from Texas captured the southern New Mexico settlement of Mesilla, and in early February, 1862, launched an attack on Fort Craig, south of Socorro. Their plan was to capture critical supplies at the fort, then move north to take Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and most importantly, the military supply depot at Fort Union.
On February 12,1862, Union troops, reinforced by several battalions of New Mexico militia, engaged the Texans at Valverde, north of Fort Craig. When the smoke cleared from the battlefield, the Union forces had withdrawn behind the protective walls of the fort, leaving the Confederates the apparent victors. But the southern troops were unable to mount a siege of the fort, and instead, continued their march north, short of supplies,and with a strong Union force threatening their rear.
As the Confederate forces approached Santa Fe in early March, New Mexico Governor Henry Connelly and the Union troops at Fort Marcy evacuated the capital and relocated the executive offices to Las Vegas. They also moved the military supplies and equipment from Fort Marcy to safety at Fort Union. On March 10, a scouting party of southern troops entered the evacuated capital, and for more than two weeks, the Confederate flag flew over the ancient Palace of the Governors. The pivotal battle of the Civil War in New Mexico began on March 26, 1862, when Union troops from Fort Union, volunteers from Colorado, and New Mexico militia, confronted the Confederate army at Apache Canyon east of Santa Fe. For three days, they vied for control of this strategic pass, until a Union raiding party penetrated to therear of the Confederate positions and destroyed their supply train.
Desperately short of supplies, the Texans were forced to retreat, ending the southern threat to New Mexico. Soon thereafter, the federal government turned its attention to rounding up and forcing New Mexico's Indian tribes onto reservations. The most notable of these actions was the forced relocation of the Navajo to Bosque Redondo in 1863, where they remained until 1868. By 1880, most of New Mexico's Indian tribes had been relegated to reservations.
CANBY'S SERVICES IN THE NEW MEXICAN CAMPAIGN
[Footnote] A remarkable march though the hostile Indian country of Arizona to join Canby was made by eleven companies of infantry, two of cavalry, and two batteries, under Colonel J. H. Carleton, which were dispatched by General George Wright, commanding the Department of the Pacific, overland from Southern California. The column started April 13th, 1862, and arrived at Santa Fe September 20th.--- EDITORS
Given all y'all's interest in that topic, isn't this kind of comment more appropriate over on the 'Lincoln was a homo' thread?
Of course not, it's the party of Abraham Lincoln. Maybe you would be happier over with The Party of Jeff Davis? A Google search will no doubt get you to the DNC website.
No, she was talking about how Abraham Lincoln wanted peace but was forced into war, just like her husband was.
I suppose Hitlery probably mentioned them at some point in time. Does that make Slick Willie a member of The Party Of Lincoln?
You would have to point out where Mrs. Clinton mentioned Lincoln and we'll take it from there.
Sure there were. The Republican Party has referred to itself proudly as the Party of Lincoln back when you all were peeing all over youself in your haste to vote Democrat. But that's OK. We long time GOP supporters are proud to welcome you to the Party of Lincoln.
Mrs. Bush? I'm not sure. They jury on her husband is still out as to whether he's a Reagan Republican or an FDR whannabe. That will depend on how many new entitlements he tries to implement in his second term, and how many states rights he wants to trash.
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.