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

Skip to comments.

Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals
Townhall.com ^ | July 22, 2020 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."

There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."

Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.

Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: confederategenerals; confederatestatues; constitution; declaofindependence; decofindependence; greatbritain; robertelee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 641-655 next last
To: jeffersondem
Once I saw a list of fallacies. There was a whole mess of them.

I wish someone on this site knew the names, what they mean, and could identify how many you cram into one sentence.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2974322/posts

A Review of Common Fallacies that Weaken Arguments

Jan 2, 2013

401 posted on 07/29/2020 1:58:38 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
The concept of 'per capita' completely baffles you, doesn't it?

You have yet to produce any evidence for this claim.Not unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court later ruled that military tribunals held during that period were unconstitutional in areas of the country where the civilian courts operated freely.

Yes it is unconstitutional. The Chief Justice ruled such at the time for which Lincoln signed an arrest warrant for him and the entire Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional later.Fake news. No such warrant was ever issued, and none of the Roger Taney biographers, and there are several, found any evidence at all that Taney was ever in danger of being arrested.

Fake news indeed. I said signed. It was. It was not issued. Even Lincoln realized how bad that would look.Then you should have no problems listing them. I await your post with baited breath.

Go back and read.OK so when Mark Neely uncovers facts you dislike then he's a propagandist and a liar? But when he uncovers facts you like then he's a reputable historian and a stand-up guy? Glad we straightened that out.

Mark Neely is always a joke. When he makes a statement against interest....ie contradicts your dogma, that really says something.No, it was Vallandigham, one 'n'. Look it up.

OOOH! A typo! You got me good there!Not even close to being true. Only property being used to support the rebellion was subject to confiscation. Those not rebelling were fine.

FalseWon the Pulitzer Prize for history in 1992, so yeah.

The Pulitzer....you mean what the NY Times won for the 1619 project? You mean what Walter Duranty won for being Stalin's mouthpiece and denying the Holodomor was happening? Color me unimpressed.Dean Sprague? DEAN SPRAGUE????? LOL!

So the book contains more than 302 pages right? That's what you were trying to deny last time. Pathetic deflection attempt by the way.

402 posted on 07/29/2020 6:01:18 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher; Kaslin; rustbucket; jeffersondem; OIFVeteran; central_va; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; ...
woodpusher: "It may cause some consternation that two states [North Carolina & Rhode Island] were out of the union, while it was impossible for any state to have ever left the indestructible, indissoluble union.
And then there was Vermont who up and formed an independent state from 1777-1791."

jeffersondem: "What you are doing with the presentation of facts is beyond brutal.
Sir, you are mean."

rustbucket: "LOL. Kudos to both of you."

OIFVeteran: "...the Union (The United States of America) that began it’s existence on 4 July 1776 has continued to exist uninterrupted since that day.
There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America."

Right, sorry I'm too late for this party, was required elsewhere...

The basic fact is that since Day One the US has added or subtracted territories & states, set & reset their boundaries, divided them up, consolidated some and, in the case of the Philippines, Cuba & others, set some free.
All of these were done constitutionally & lawfully, thus fulfilling James Madison's requirement that such "at pleasure" events be by mutual consent.

So here woodpusher & others wish to dangle before us the states of North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont, claiming, "see, see, see... those were not part of the Union so the 'indestructible' Union did not exist!"

Well, first of all, no foreign power ever officially recognized those states as separate & independent of the United States, nor did any other US states.
Second, none of those states declared themselves "free and independent" of the USA, and all ratified the new US Constitution as soon as they thought conditions warranted.

Bottom line is: the US Constitution allows for great flexibility in status or boundaries of territories & states, when changed by constitutionally approved methods.

403 posted on 07/30/2020 4:04:02 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Kaslin; rustbucket; jeffersondem; OIFVeteran; central_va; Pelham; DiogenesLamp
There was a short period when two states were not part of the government currently operating at the time, but they were still apart of the United States of America."

States were never part of the Federal government, and are not part of the government today. The States are the members of the Union that created the Government.

Which branch of the government do find the States to be in? Legislative, Judicial, or Executive?

404 posted on 07/30/2020 6:33:44 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Kaslin; rustbucket; jeffersondem; OIFVeteran; central_va; Pelham; DiogenesLamp
So here woodpusher & others wish to dangle before us the states of North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont, claiming, "see, see, see... those were not part of the Union so the 'indestructible' Union did not exist!" Well, first of all, no foreign power ever officially recognized those states as separate & independent of the United States....

The United States recognized Vermont as a separate and independent state from 1777 to 1791.

Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)

In the United States Supreme Court

Our conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the Order-in-Council of 1764 would be decisive of the boundary of Vermont upon her admission to the Union were it not for the history of Vermont as a revolutionary government and the consequent uncertainty whether she was admitted under the second clause of Article IV, § 3, of the Constitution as a new state formed out of the territory of New York, with her boundary accordingly determined by that of New York, or whether she was admitted under the first clause of Article IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries.

The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire Grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire Grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved" and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791 an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.


405 posted on 07/30/2020 6:42:55 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher

The 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized North Carolina and Rhode Island individually by name along with the other 11 colonies as being sovereign.


406 posted on 07/30/2020 6:55:55 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
The 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized North Carolina and Rhode Island individually by name along with the other 11 colonies as being sovereign.

Correct. It is not clear when or how the States ever ceded their sovereignty. It is clear they created a government and delegated powers to that government. It is clear that they agreed to not exercise certain powers of sovereignty while members of the Union. There cannot be 13 or 50 different foreign policies of a single government. Agreeing not to exercise some aspect of sovereignty does not cede sovereignty, see e.g., Panama or Hong Kong.

The Articles of Confederation recognized that each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which was not by that Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. It was a unicameral government, consisting solely of a legislature, for a firm league of friendship.

It is clear that the States are no longer sovereign and free. The 14th Amendment dictates that all U.S. citizens who reside in a State are citizens of that State. It also seems the States are not free to leave or reclaim their self-determination of citizenship.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

II.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

III.

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

The Union became historically an indestructible, indissoluble union of indestructible, indissoluble states right after the Civil War, in a post-war case about bearer bonds.

407 posted on 07/30/2020 7:33:31 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher; BroJoeK

Vermont was not part of the original 13 colonies and was not a part of the United States of America when it began its existent on July 4th, 1776.

However once It was admitted to the Union and became a part of the United States it became a part of the perpetual Union. The same thing the Supreme Court said about Texas in Texas V White applies to Vermont.

“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.”
Texas v White 1869


408 posted on 07/30/2020 7:39:25 PM PDT by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; woodpusher; Kaslin; jeffersondem; OIFVeteran; central_va; Pelham; DiogenesLamp
Here is yet another reference to Rhode Island and North Carolina being out of the Union. Take a look at the Gazette of the United States, April 15, 1789, Image 1

This issue of the Gazette lists each of the eleven states in the then present union and separately lists the Foreign States of Rhode Island and North Carolina. Here is what is says of the Foreign States [I used bold font for the word "confederation" below so that you would notice it, and I converted the old style letter "s" to the modern letter "s"]:

FOREIGN STATES.

RHODE-ISLAND,
Is 68 miles in length, and 40 in breath, and by a Census taken in 1783, contained 51,896 inhabitants. This State has again refused to accede to a union with her sister States, and is now wholly estranged from them ;and from appearances, will long continue so, unless the measure of the iniquity of her "KNOW YE" gentry should be speedily filled up—or the delusion which has so long infatuated a majority of her citizens, should be removed.—Anxious of enjoying the protection of the union, the inhabitants of Newport, Providence and other places, are determined to sue for its protection, and to be annexed to Massachusetts or Connecticut. This dismemberment of the State it is to be desired, may be prevented by her being wholly grafted into that stock from whence through blindness she has been broken off.

NORTH-CAROLINA.
Is 758 miles in length, and 110 in breadth, and by a census taken in 1787, contained 270,000 inhabitants. A depreciated paper medium, and a deficiency of political knowledge, are considered as the causes of the anti-national spirit of this State. Her extensive frontier, and being obliged to export the greater part of her productions through Virginia, it is expected will ere long evince the necessity of her acceding to the confederation. This indeed appears already to be the predominant idea of her citizens, by some recent transactions.

409 posted on 07/30/2020 8:16:45 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
Correct. It is not clear when or how the States ever ceded their sovereignty.

They never agreed to. 3 states including the two biggest ones which were leaders of their respective regions (NY and VA) expressly said they were NOT ceding their sovereignty AND they reserved the right to take back all of their powers whenever they wanted to. It is clear they created a government and delegated powers to that government.

Yes. Delegated. What a superior does with a subordinate. The people who drafted this and the people who drafted the Treaty of Paris....ie the Founding Fathers, were in many cases, lawyers. They knew exactly what the legal meaning of the words they chose actually was. Its not an accident they insisted that EACH state be recognized as sovereign BY NAME. It not an accident that they specifically said the states were DELEGATING some of their sovereign powers to the federal government. Non lawyers may simply brush past these terms and not understand their legal importance. The Founders understood perfectly well what they were doing.It is clear that they agreed to not exercise certain powers of sovereignty while members of the Union. There cannot be 13 or 50 different foreign policies of a single government. Agreeing not to exercise some aspect of sovereignty does not cede sovereignty, see e.g., Panama or Hong Kong. Correct. Especially when they expressly say they are not ceding their sovereignty like the states did. People should remember, the constitution was ratified only 8 years after the Treaty of Paris. They had only had their sovereignty recognized for 8 years.....and it had taken 8 long years of bloody war to get it. They sure as hell were not eager to give up something so hard won. The Articles of Confederation recognized that each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which was not by that Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. It was a unicameral government, consisting solely of a legislature, for a firm league of friendship. It is clear that the States are no longer sovereign and free. The 14th Amendment dictates that all U.S. citizens who reside in a State are citizens of that State. It also seems the States are not free to leave or reclaim their self-determination of citizenship.

Now the states have been reduced to being little more than administrative conveniences.....mere appendages of the federal government for most practical purposes. I could go on about how the 14th amendment was never legally passed....votes of some congressmen were changed and not recognized, there were some shenanigans with the Senators from Oregon, there was simply NO basis for the Southern states to be occupied, their voters disenfranchised and carpet bagger puppet governments installed and agreeing to passage of the 14th amendment being set as a condition to be considered to be back "in". That is especially the case when the entire basis on which the Northern states/federal government fought the war was that they never truly left. SO if they never left...how could they be "out"? How could conditions be set by other states that they had to jump through certain hoops to be back "in"? Where in the constitution are states or the federal government empowered to do any of this? I asked by law school profs this question years ago. They just hemmed and hawed and said some "funny business" had happened in the wake of the war. That's quite an understatement. It was a naked exercise of might makes right with no democratic legitimacy. That is the system we still live under today. The original constitution died at Appamattox. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. The Union became historically an indestructible, indissoluble union of indestructible, indissoluble states right after the Civil War, in a post-war case about bearer bonds.

Texas v White was a farce. Did anybody expect the Supreme Court to rule after all that bloodshed that the Union had been wrong and the Southern states right the whole time? The Justices never would have survived the week. It was a 5-3 decision. Three justices were appointed in 1862. One in 1863 and One in 1864. Gosh, who was in office then? How many were from the Southern states? Precisely 0.

410 posted on 07/30/2020 8:44:28 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
Robert E.Lee took up arms against the duly elected government and Constitution he swore an oath to defend. That makes him an insurrectionist and a traitor.

Due to political expediency, the nations psychical, emotional, industrial, financial cost and staggering death toll on both sides Lincoln saw no point in prosecuting Lee and Davis as the war criminals they were even though Davis wanted to continue the war in a guerrilla style fashion. Robert E. Lee served a system of government that endeavored to enslave a race of human beings as nothing more that chattel.

411 posted on 07/30/2020 10:28:42 PM PDT by jmacusa (If we're all equal how is diversity our strength?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Robert E. Lee is a great hero. Even many Yankee Freeper can see that the Federal government’s over-reach has grown consistently more oppressive since Lee’s time. Not that unrestrained national tyranny is upon us, you have nothing better to do than defame Lee?


412 posted on 07/30/2020 10:38:35 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a Russian AK-47 and a French bikini.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

Lee defamed himself. Spare me the Chauvinist worship He waged war against the United States. He was a traitor so cut the hero worship nonsense.


413 posted on 07/30/2020 11:17:40 PM PDT by jmacusa (If we're all equal how is diversity our strength?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Like most real Americans, I consider Lee a great hero. It is too bad that socialist super state worshipers like yourself have zero sense of history. The defeat of loyal Americans like Lee who was true to his state and the original constitution is what brought about today’s calamity.


414 posted on 07/31/2020 12:56:23 AM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a Russian AK-47 and a French bikini.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
Correct. It is not clear when or how the States ever ceded their sovereignty. It is clear they created a government and delegated powers to that government. It is clear that they agreed to not exercise certain powers of sovereignty while members of the Union. There cannot be 13 or 50 different foreign policies of a single government. Agreeing not to exercise some aspect of sovereignty does not cede sovereignty, see e.g., Panama or Hong Kong.

How do you define sovereignty?

415 posted on 07/31/2020 4:11:19 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; DoodleDawg; Brass Lamp; DiogenesLamp; FLT-bird; woodpusher; rustbucket; BroJoeK

“Robert E. Lee served a system of government that endeavored to enslave a race of human beings as nothing more that chattel.”

The same can be said of Lincoln: Lincoln served a system of government that endeavored to enslave a race of human beings as nothing more (than) chattel.

I don’t think anyone denies that the corner stone of the United States Constitution was slavery.

However, you have repeatedly made the case that Lincoln took up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution: Lincoln and the North “fought to free the slaves.”

Your argument that Lincoln violently overthrew the United States Constitution is quite controversial. But maybe he did.


416 posted on 07/31/2020 4:48:39 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
The cornerstone of the constitution was slavery?

Nope. It was a compromise, and a minor detail that they decided could be settled later...so it was allowed because at the toime it was actually dying out...and importation of slaves stopped in the early 1800s. But then technology made cotton clothing cheaper than wool and flax,which led to plantations becoming economically viable...but by 1860, cotton had competition from Egypt and India, which might have made compensation to free the slaves and making them into tenant farms by freemen a good alternative.

There is a good argument that a compromise to compensate owners to free slaves would have ended slavery without war, but extremists on both sides stopped that.

417 posted on 07/31/2020 5:07:16 AM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Sovereignty is deriving their power from no other source/exercising power in their own name.


418 posted on 07/31/2020 5:24:18 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher; Kaslin; rustbucket; jeffersondem; OIFVeteran; central_va; Pelham; DiogenesLamp
woodpusher to OIFVeteran: "States were never part of the Federal government, and are not part of the government today.
The States are the members of the Union that created the Government."

Your first sentence is a minor quibble over words.
Your second sentence confirms OIFVeteran's point.

The Union exists since 1776 regardless of which specific forms its government takes.
States like North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont were never formally recognized as separated from that Union.

419 posted on 07/31/2020 5:38:05 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
woodpusher: "The United States recognized Vermont as a separate and independent state from 1777 to 1791.
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)"

quoting 1933 ruling: "...Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries."

Recognized in 1791 as a new US state by mutual consent from Massachusetts, New Hampshire & New York, among others, and in exchange for admitting Kentucky as a slave-state.
Prior to Vermont's admission it was never recognized by any other state or foreign power as an independent country.

420 posted on 07/31/2020 5:48:25 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 641-655 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