Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

April 12, 1861 The War Between The States Begins!
Civil War.com ^ | Unknown | Unknown

Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 901-909 next last
To: TexConfederate1861

Yes, it’s included with the Southern states, but if you grew up in any other part of the south, it certainly doesn’t feel like it. LOL


201 posted on 04/12/2007 1:37:32 PM PDT by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

If a man was raising troops say in Illinois, to fight against it’s citizens, then that is TREASON against one’s home and state. Confederate Troops were a different story. As for Tennessee, I can’t speak for their actions.....


202 posted on 04/12/2007 1:40:19 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
“Why not get yourself riled up about the Norman Invasion of 1066 while you’re at it?”

Why do that?, my ancestors WERE Normans! :)

Oh-oh! Mine were Celts and Saxons!!

It's a good thing we are not talking face to face - not only would we re-enact the Civil War, we'd probably be re-fighting the War of Roses and the Franco-Prussian War too!

203 posted on 04/12/2007 1:40:45 PM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Wasn't immoral in 1861? Plenty of people knew it was immoral. Just because it was socially acceptable by some does not mean that many others recognized it for what it was - immoral!

Besides, the economy of the south was heavily dependent on slaves whether or not one personally owned slaves.

204 posted on 04/12/2007 1:41:08 PM PDT by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Tokra

That fort was no LONGER Federal Property as of Dec 1860.
Therefore you are wrong.


205 posted on 04/12/2007 1:41:35 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Starting to foam a little at the mouth, aren't we? I agree that sometimes the rule of law can be frustrating, but what apparently is frustrating you is that the law isn't what you say it is merely because you say it.

No, I'm not foaming at the mouth. I find it interesting that for the entire history of the English common law, the executive had no authority to suspend the writ (it was a power beyond even the King), the Constitution explicitly charges Congress, not the President, with the power to suspend the writ, and that every single time the issue has been before a federal court, the court has held that the President has no such power, yet, despite all this, you still argue that it is lawful for the President to suspend the writ.

I admit that my mind is boggled by those who are utterly unable to grasp facts before them.

206 posted on 04/12/2007 1:41:57 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Chief Justice Rehnquist is a speech in 2000 admits that the matter of just who may suspend habeas corpus has not been authoritatively answered to this day.

Incidentally, Rehnquist voted with the plurality in Hamdi, didn't he? Guess if he had any doubts, they were resolved by 2004, huh?

By the way, how did Scalia vote in that case?

207 posted on 04/12/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

True....I have been to Mississippi....UGH! :)

Pascagoula...anal cavity of the South! :)


208 posted on 04/12/2007 1:43:21 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
If a man was raising troops say in Illinois, to fight against it’s citizens, then that is TREASON against one’s home and state. Confederate Troops were a different story. As for Tennessee, I can’t speak for their actions.....

If a man is in the United States, raising troops to fight against the United States, THAT is treason.

209 posted on 04/12/2007 1:44:17 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"It's hard to take anyone seriously when their bias is showing as badly as his is."

That being the case, it's hard to take anyone seriously, for everyone is biased. But apart from personalities, and his error in not including the sins of the south, what did you think of his assessment of Lincoln's actions relating to his setting aside the constitution?

210 posted on 04/12/2007 1:44:31 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Tokra

Some of mine were too.....:)
My family in Scotland were Jacobites.....:)


211 posted on 04/12/2007 1:44:43 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
That fort was no LONGER Federal Property as of Dec 1860. Therefore you are wrong.

Not according to Ft. Sumpter. This is directly from their website:

Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this Federal fort in Charleston Harbor.

Sorry - YOU'RE wrong.

212 posted on 04/12/2007 1:45:11 PM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
As I said, I prefer Texas!

And my kids all consider themselves Texans through and through!

213 posted on 04/12/2007 1:46:20 PM PDT by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

Only immoral to some. And YES, the economy was dependent, and the Federal Government had no right to take away the legal property of it’s citizens.

But Texans fought for many other reasons.


214 posted on 04/12/2007 1:47:30 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

But they weren’t. They were in the Confederate States of America.


215 posted on 04/12/2007 1:49:16 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Tokra

Spelling is S-U-M-T-E-R.......
A website doesn’t overturn the Act of Secession.


216 posted on 04/12/2007 1:51:15 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
If those are his words, then no. It's quite clear. If there was any debate before--which there wasn't--then it was answered by Hamdi.

They are his words, but it's a shame that he never had the chance to learn just how wrong he was since he died before you could set him straight.

I'm not sure how it could have been answered by Hamdi, either. In Hamdi v Rumsfeld habeas corpus again had not been suspended. Not by the president. Not by Congress. The matter before the court was whether a U.S. citizen could be denied due process not who suspended it. The Court ruled they could not.

217 posted on 04/12/2007 1:51:35 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

Then Welcome....but please do not dishonor our Texas Confederate Dead. :)


218 posted on 04/12/2007 1:52:45 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
Incidentally, Rehnquist voted with the plurality in Hamdi, didn't he? Guess if he had any doubts, they were resolved by 2004, huh?

I highly doubt it since Hamdi didn't deal with a suspension of habeas corpus but a denial of due process.

By the way, how did Scalia vote in that case?

With the majority. Thomas was the sole desenting vote. And by the way, you might want to go back and read the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision and tell us all who had suspended habeas corpus. Was it the president? Congress? Rumsfeld?

219 posted on 04/12/2007 1:55:02 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus, he certainly would have had lesser the power to detain Hamdi--but he didn't.

It is absolutely impossible to argue that the President has the unilateral power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus but yet, at the same time, does not have the power to detain unlawful combatants.

220 posted on 04/12/2007 1:55:31 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 901-909 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson