Posted on 03/22/2010 10:10:57 AM PDT by Between the Lines
When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote." I fired back, "Hardly."
Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say? Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea. But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter. That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back-and-forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade.
What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.
In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business. That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies. But they didn't. Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.
So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war? Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
Well, if this wasn’t it, then WE cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into firing the first shots. WE must keep the moral high ground, and never, ever cede it to the Constitution-destroying scum suckers in D.C.
Ya know, it seems kinda inefficient to have 50 different states with 50 different legislatures and 50 different sets o’ govament. Le’ss do sumthin about that.
Mr. Heck is wrong. This war’s been going on for a long time, at the very least since Woodrow Wilson.
This is no more the start of a war than Medicaid/Medicare was in the 1960s or Social Security and the National Recovery Act back in the 1930’s.
“Oh, he did plenty of fighting during the war, and he was pretty good at it too.”
For the first three years of the war, his contribution was nil. He would have been out of the war entirely after he botched the planned invasion of Tennessee had he not been buddies with Grant. After Grant saved him, he contributed to the union almost losing when he was surprised at Shilo. he failed at Chickasau Bayou. He couldn’t secure victory at Chattanooga. Where, might I ask, is the evidence of his being pretty good, when he wasn’t fighting civilians?
“Remember, he had to take Atlanta from Hood’s army just to have the opportunity to do what he did later.”
As I recall it, the Army of Tennessee was destroyed by General Thomas in the Battle of Nashville. It was gone by the time Sherman took Savannah. That left Lee’s army, which was being ground down by Grant, as the only capable fighting force in the South. With or without Sherman capturing Atlanta and marching to the Sea, it was only a matter of time, then.
Sherman’s march itself has been vastly overrated by historians and military analysts for various reasons. Most importantly, it was dramatic. Also, people like B.H. Liddell Hart had their own theories to prove. In his case, it was that the “indirect attack” was preferable (and what’s more indirect than avoiding the enemy entirely?).
“It would finally be decided when one side or another either lost the will, or the ability to continue the war.”
What sucked more will from the South, really? Sherman beating up railroads or Hood vanishing and Lee digging in for a war of attrition?
Oh, lighten up. Everyone is entitled to an oppinion even if it’s wrong to others. I personally think Lincoln shredded the constitution just as much as Pelosi just did.
Not wanting to get into a civil war argument that will never be settled, I still don’t understand why the North would not “allow” the South to seceed. You can spout all kinds of crap but the bottom line is they needed the agriculture to survive.
And one more thing, your rambling doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to this “dumb old red neck racist sister marryin’ hillbilly southerner”. And I still will not welcome you to Texas when we get the hell out of your union.
I said “too bad it didn’t happen earlier”. Can’t you read?
All of you Confederate haters obviously get upset when anyone says anything about your precious Abe Lincoln. But he still got killed. BY A YANKEE!
All well and good. But why introduce slavery into Kansas, undoing the Missouri Compromise in the process? Why demand that slavery be legal in every single state of the Union? Why deny the right of states to prohibit it or refuse to protect it? That doesn't sound like "states' rights" to me. It sounds like a federal power grab.
And one more thing, your rambling doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to this “dumb old red neck racist sister marryin’ hillbilly southerner”.
You didn't read my initial post to you, did you?
Have you ever heard of West Virginia? Of East Tennessee? Of Jones County, Mississippi? Of the Hurst Nation in West Tennessee? Of the Heroes of America in western North Carolina?
If you can refuse to believe I am a Southerner, I can refuse to believe you are a hillbilly. The hillbillies were almost uniformly pro-Union and anti-Confederate, all the way down to Georgia and Alabama. The Confederacy was the cause of rich, bourbon swilling, cigar smoking, gambling planter elite. Poor whites were nothing to them but "patter rollers" to keep their slaves in line. And if you doubt this, you obviously don't know that the venomous hatred Blacks have always held for the poorest of whites was taught to them by Ole Massa.
And I still will not welcome you to Texas when we get the hell out of your union.
Not being a Slave Power Centralizer, I won't ask you to do so.
All of you Confederate haters obviously get upset when anyone says anything about your precious Abe Lincoln. But he still got killed. BY A YANKEE!
<><><><><><
LOL.
Just like you guys still fighting the Civil War get upset when you are reminded that the states right you could not live without was slavery.
And let’s face, Alexander Stephens (you know, the Confederacy’s VP) said it straight out in the so-called cornerstone speech.
Let’s go to the tape, shall we?
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
And
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.”
We have to at least try to try this in court. FORCING people to buy anything doesn’t work in America. I’ve calmed down a bit since last night . Passing the bill and seeing the Marxist open champagne was too much , I short circuited for awhile
“I should have clarified, though it should be obvious...”
Hmmmm...I’m the one with petty sarcasm? Your ideas are all over the place, you have twisted logic and ignored facts and “reconstructed” the very words of the man himself to meet your purposes. Nice job. The filthy bstrd was a murdering SOB and history, no matter what you say, will not change that.
You are living the history that has been re-written...and that, my friend, is sad. This is not an attack on AMERICA it was a plain and unvarnished look at the history, the man and the facts. Sorry they made you so uncomfortable.
And I still will not welcome you to Texas when we get the hell out of your union.
<><><><><><>
This is just a funny comment.
After all the federal dollars that Texas eats up dry up post secession, Haiti will be more attractive.
“Maybe it’s your inability to understand my words.”
Yup. I don’t understand gobbledygook.
“I wonder, if we polled the posters on this thread, whether they’d agree that Lincoln and other federalists were more likely to defend the Constitution, against successionism, as perpetual because that’s the way Americans had lived for four score and seven years, whereas the various successionists movements that popped up here and there died as soon as the appeared.”
Seriously...poll them with the question above as written and no one will have the slighest idea what the hell you are talking about.
I will, however, try to address some of the misconceptions as you stated.
“...whether they’d agree that Lincoln and other federalists were more likely to defend the Constitution, against successionism, ....”
I think...and I’m going out on a limb here...is that you meant “nationalists” instead of “federalists”. A federalist believed in states’ rights. Your boy was a nationalist. That’s not semantics or typos, that’s just not knowing what the hell you’re talking about. A typo would be using “successionism” rather than “secessionism”. (which I’m pretty sure aren’t even real words.)
Once we weed through all that the point is, your poll would be stupid because it was impossible for Lincoln or anybody else to defend the Constitution “against secessionism” because secession was not addressed in the Constitution. You MIGHT be able to argue that he was protecting the country from secession, but it had nothing to do with the Constitution.
The rest of your statement is uttered in such total ignorance of an understanding of the day that it would require hours of history lessons to get you to the point we could have a meaningful discussion. Let me try to make this as simple as possible. Up until the WBTS people considered this to be a federation, i.e., the United STATES of America. “States” by definition that were sovereign and joined together by mutual agreement. After the war people began to look at the U.S. as the one “nation” you mistakenly believe people perceived as belonging to before the war. In other words, as you would define, the United STATE of America.
Really. And I’m not using this word as an insult, but rather as the most correct word to apply....you are way too ignorant of the history, the times and the people to be having this conversation.
Please read up on the subject before posting any more comments. It’s embarrassing.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-641
“But it died out in the Northern states...”
Really? You better check your history. While not prevelent, there were still slaves in some northern states.
“...and then the slaveholders wanted to reintroduce it, against the wishes of the people who lived in those states.”
Please document that. LOL. What, they were gong to force individual Yankees to own slaves?
You can start right here.
Seriously. I’ll take non-sensical any day. At least he knows the history even if he interprets it incorrectly. These people are so numbingly stupid it hurts.
“I use the term “mythology” with care. I do not mean it in the sense of falsehood or misconception. Myths are seldom true in the strictest sense, but they usually contain a larger truth...”
Hahahahaha...what a lead in to the biggest piece of bullshite ever written...oh, and I don’t mean bullshite in the ordinary sense of the word...hahahahah....hysterical...thanks for the laughs.
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.