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.
He also referred to God. Does that mean God is a communist supporter, too?
So do Nolu Chan and 4CJ and GOP and, apparently, you. You all would probably know, too?
No disagreement on that point. Since when did the south think other states didn't have rights? Unless you maybe are refering to the Fugitive Slave Act....that involves property rights. You know, the right to own property without having it stolen? But you guys apparently thought our rights were less, or something else. The South would not have tried to coerce Northern States by force, and you can bet on that.
I wasn't pinged on that one.
It is however fair to say that the Western - Southern alliance that many attmepted to build during the Jackson Administration (which was fumbled away by John C. Calhoun, the poster child of "too clever by half"), is now a FACT. I don't recall any election since 1860 where the nation was so neatly divided by region as it is now.
In their acts on unilateral secession. They did so without a thought that the other states had rights and issues that were negatively impacted by the southern actions. The southern states seized federal property, repudiated their responsibility for the national debt, blocked access to the sea for markets along the Mississippi river. Didn't the rights of the Northern states matter? Or did they have any rights at all?
Well he got that wrong.
Not to mention one referencing God. I imagine that must be pushing you towards atheism.
I think I'll copy it with your permission.
What are his sources? The reason I ask is that it seems highly unlikely that Julia Grant would visit her husband at his encampment at Petersburg and bring a hired girl with her, as was documented, and then show up at Richmond accompanied by slaves a few months later. It also brings up the question how Julia Grant was able to do that since Missouri outlawed slave ownership in January 1865 through an amendment to the state Constitution, and Julia Grant's chattel would certainly be included in that. And why would Julia retain ownership of her slaves anyway, when Missouri records indicate that her father freed all his slaves in January or February of 1863? How do you explain all that? Or rather, how does Roy Blount explain all that?
So when was this visit supposed to have taken place? The reason I ask is that Grant doesn't mention a visit to Richmond in his memoirs and I can't find a reference to a visit to Richmond in Catton's biography of Grant. I know that Lincoln visited Richmond but he was escorted by General Wetzel and not General Grant. So do you have a date?
Mrs. Grant's memoirs were ghostwritten, although they are supposed to be based on her reminiscences. They also contain a number of errors, like on the question of slave ownership.
The company that was dispatched to Fort Davis could not have known with certainty that it was abandoned; however, given the Texans had been routed an were fleeing back to San antonio, it is a reasonable assumption. But Fort Jefferson Davis had symbolic value. My use of the word "capture" is 100% accurate per the definition I have several times supplied. You have as poor comprehension abilities as GOPc if you can not understand that.
"As far as you being in a 'red' part of CA, you told me where you lived when I posted from LALA land that we could meet for a beer... Since I don't know exactly where you're at, I'll just point out that the area is pretty blue on the county-by-county map."
I am in Ventura County. It is located between Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County. It includes the cities of Ventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, and Oxnard. Of these only Oxnard is heavily hispanic and leans Democrat. The County has an historical agricultural, military, and petroleum background. It is becoming a bedroom community for those who are escaping socialist Los Angeles. Here are the preliminary election results for President. Full results can be found on the Calif. Sec. of State, Elction Division website. They represent an improvement from 4 years ago, where Bush won only on the basis of absentee ballots. I expect the margin for Bush to increase when the absentee ballots are counted this year.
Bush - 109,007 50.8%
Kerry - 103,360 48.2%
"The case of Lemmon was not the first or most eggregious of your transgressions."
If you were to go back and actually read my comments, rather than the misrepresentations by nolu coward and others, you will see I made a three-sentence post about it, which I retracted the next day because it was simply a mistake. Posters who are themselves dishonest, point that out as an attempt to deceive. As the post was so clearly and easily proved wrong, and was retracted within a day, that doesn't make much sense, does it? But if you want to be part of the "liar choir," that's your choice.
Amy Warwick was one of the Prize Cases. As I recall, I was making points in that part of the thread about what the case was about, in a discussion of the Congresses power to retrospecively approve actions by the President, and how the cases were cast. If I said they were "rulings" by the Court, that was mistaken. However, the point remains that the Congress had the power to approve of Lincoln's assumption of emergency war powers and to similarly approve his susepnsion of the habeas writ. If you can point to the specific post you have problem with, I will review it.
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.