Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Whaddya know? Ya got one right!
WIJG: I doubt it...
N-S: Whaddya know? Ya got one right!
This time, and EVERY time I've commented on your endless stream of non sequiturs...
;>)
One correct out of how many and you're declaring a shutout? Still a legend in your own mind I see.
N-S: One correct out of how many and you're declaring a shutout? Still a legend in your own mind I see.
I can provide links - but you're "[s]till a legend in your own mind I see."
Ante up, sport...
;>)
I believe we were talking of field commands. By your reasoning, anyone who disagreed with Lincoln — North, South, or internationally — could be said to have taken up arms against the Union. I was referring to taking up arms in the literal sense (i.e., combat, actually fighting or directing actual engagements).
No, we were talking about 'taking up arms' which I take to mean actively serving in a military engaged in war or, in the Southern case, armed rebellion.
Well, then, since I disagree with what Lincoln did, I guess I can then be said to have taken up arms against him and his cause, some umpteen decades after the fact. Hey, if that’s the case, then I proudly proclaim I took up arms against Lincoln.
My wife’s father, during WWII, drove a truck stateside when he was in the Army. Didn’t haul war materiel, troops, or anything of a martial nature. The only time he ever “took up arms” was when he fired his weapon in basic training. He never saw a Jap, a Nazi, or an Eye-Tie. Against whom exactly, did he “take up arms?” The silhouette at the rifle range? He never broke a code, transmitted any military orders or logistics, trained anybody in combat, or did anything of a martial nature. He served in the military, but he did not take up arms.
Well, then, since I disagree with what Lincoln did, I guess I can then be said to have taken up arms against him and his cause, some umpteen decades after the fact. Hey, if that’s the case, then I proudly proclaim I took up arms against Lincoln.
My wife’s father, during WWII, drove a truck stateside when he was in the Army. Didn’t haul war materiel, troops, or anything of a martial nature. The only time he ever “took up arms” was when he fired his weapon in basic training. He never saw a Jap, a Nazi, or an Eye-Tie. Against whom exactly, did he “take up arms?” The silhouette at the rifle range? He never broke a code, transmitted any military orders or logistics, trained anybody in combat, or did anything of a martial nature. He served in the military, but he did not take up arms.
“He did. It’s called the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.”
Um, he didn’t. The 13th Amendment was not ratified until after Lincoln was dead.
“...and Georgia claimed it (Alabama) as part of the state of Georgia sometime thereafter.”
And the Crimson Tide has been kicking Bulldog butt ever since! :)
I suppose you can say that...if you have no concept what the term means. Lee accepted command of the Virginia forces which started planning hostile acts against the U.S. the day before secession was voted by the legislature. By any possible stretch of the imagination, Lee took up arms in April 1861, some 20 months before he freed his slaves. And not after he freed them, as you claimed earlier.
Lincoln supported it, pushed to have it added to the Republican platform in 1864, pushed for it in his last annual message to Congress, and lived to see it passed and and ratified by a number of states. That would not have happened without his full support.
At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session.Of course the abstract question is not changed; but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?
It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes, any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now, for the first time, heard upon the question.
In a great national crisis, like ours, unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable — almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable, unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority.
In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union; and, among the means to secure that end, such will, through the election, is most clearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment.
A. Lincoln, Message to Congress, December, 1864.
;>)
"Who is John Galt" - noting intelligent follows...as usual...
I swear, none of you people read the comics.
LOL - you're still going to have people insist that the South lost because the Rebs kept leaving the battlefield to thrash the slaves. Facts are meaningless on them. This is like an argument a few years ago about the Monitor class ironclads, where people were insisting they were the most seaworthy thing around, even though Farragut himself basically said they sucked.
I swear, none of you people read read your own posts, or the responses:
WIJG: This time, and EVERY time I've commented on your endless stream of non sequiturs...
N-S: One correct out of how many and you're declaring a shutout? Still a legend in your own mind I see.
WIJG: I can provide links - but you're "[s]till a legend in your own mind I see." Ante up, sport...
Ante up, dip sh!t...
;>)
;>)
Howdy...long time no see HS.
God bless ya pardner.
Bingo! Why isn't the Monitor moored next to the Constitution? Because the design couldn't handle heavy weather...
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.