Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
Astounding Triumph of Republicanism.
THE NORTH RISING IN INDIGNATION AT THE MENACES OF THE SOUTH
Abraham Lincoln Probably Elected President by a Majority of the Entire Popular Vote
Forty Thousand Majority for the Republican Ticket in New-York
One Hundred Thousand Majority in Pennsylvania
Seventy Thousand Majority in Massachusetts
Corresponding Gains in the Western and North-Western States
Preponderance of John Bell and Conservatism at the South
Results of the Contest upon Congressional and Local Tickets
The canvass for the Presidency of the United States terminated last evening, in all the States of the Union, under the revised regulation of Congress, passed in 1845, and the result, by the vote of New-York, is placed beyond question at once. It elects ABRAHAM LINCOLN of Illinois, President, and HANNIBAL HAMLIN of Maine, Vice-President of the United States, for four years, from the 4th March next, directly by the People.
The election, so far as the City and State of New-York are concerned, will probably stand, hereafter as one of the most remarkable in the political contests of the country; marked, as it is, by far the heaviest popular vote ever cast in the City, and by the sweeping, and almost uniform, Republican majorities in the country.
RELATED HEADLINES
ELECTION DAY IN THE CITY: All Quiet and Orderly At the Polls: Progress of the Voting in the Several Wards: The City After Nightfall: How the News Was Received: Unbounded Enthusiasm of the Republicans and Bell-Everett Headquarters: The Times Office Beseiged: Midnight Display of Wide-Awakes: Bonfires and Illuminations
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I have no idea what His Holiness knew about warfare and weapons. He was 70 at the time and had been depending on Austrian and French troops to keep his loyal subjects from running him out of Rome entirely so it is, I suppose, possible that he might have pictured the attack exactly as you described.
The use of the term Greek Fire was a figurative statement that conveyed the exact same thing.
It's a shame that Mr. Mann will never know how lucky he is that we have you to tell him what he was thinking.
It doesn't appear that anyone has personally seen any evidence that Davis supported it.
The Supreme Court battle in the CSA Congress is covered in practically any good book on the history of the confederate government itself. You must not be reading quality material then.
And yet none of this 'quality reading material' seems to have any evidence that Davis paid more than lip-service to the establishment of a supreme court.
This is the full title:
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
by Thomas DiLorenzo
We report, you decide.
Go read up on the history of ex parte Merryman and re-think your statement. Three factual errors in one paragraph is not too bad, though.
Here is how Beauregard replied to Gillmore concerning Gillmore's bombardment of Charleston civilians: "It would appear, sir, that despairing of reducing these works [Sumter and Morris Island], you now resort to the novel measure of turning your guns against the old men, the women and children, and the hospitals of a sleeping city, an act of inexcusable barbarity..."
Even the free Negro fire brigade who put out the first fire lit by Gillmore's shells were heard to mutter, "cussed bobolitionists" (abolitionists). [from Burton's book on the Siege of Charleston].
Nah, stuck pig. His reputation preceeded him. Davis thought that he was a coward.
Sure they have. Heck, you've even seen it. As I noted previously it appears in (a) the fact that he PUBLICLY STATED his support for it and (b) that Congress took up a bill on it after that statement of support.
And yet none of this 'quality reading material' seems to have any evidence that Davis paid more than lip-service to the establishment of a supreme court.
False. Practically any history of the matter identifies the Congress' inaction on the courts as a way of blocking Davis' desire to increase his power.
I don't care if he was 120 at the time. That still doesn't make him old enough to have witnessed catapult warfare at the walls of Constantinople!
and had been depending on Austrian and French troops to keep his loyal subjects from running him out of Rome entirely so it is, I suppose, possible that he might have pictured the attack exactly as you described.
You cannot be serious, non-seq. It is an absurdity to suggest that, upon hearing the figurative statement Greek Fire, the pope thought they were referring to catapults flinging pots of sulphuric stuff over the battlements of some medieval fortress! If he was 70 in 1863 that would have made him a boy during the Napoleonic wars that consumed all of Europe, leaving virtually no doubt that he knew of warfare's progression beyond medieval times.
It's a shame that Mr. Mann will never know how lucky he is that we have you to tell him what he was thinking.
Considering that you have already told everyone that he was thinking of catapults flinging pots of boiling sulphur in a medieval seige circa 1863, my offering of meaning to his words is nothing more than a reasonable correction upon the absurdity that you originally assigned to him.
Well guess what. Mr. "More Anal Retentive than Wlat" himself, Non-Sequitur, INSISTS that the CSA diplomat was being literal and was actually attempting to decieve the pope into - get this - thinking that Charleston was being seiged by yankee catapults flinging pots of boiling sulphuric compounds ala Constantinople circa 1100 AD!
I asked Non-Seq if he honestly believed "that the pope thought yankee ships were sailing into Charleston harbor, edging up against the city's massive stone walls, and flinging giant pots of boiling sulphuric compounds (almost assuredly with their onboard catapults) over the battlements, with their guardian archers, and onto the civilians from the neighboring serfdoms taking refuge inside."
Here is his response:
"I have no idea what His Holiness knew about warfare and weapons. He was 70 at the time and had been depending on Austrian and French troops to keep his loyal subjects from running him out of Rome entirely so it is, I suppose, possible that he might have pictured the attack exactly as you described."
Yes, you read that right. Non-Seq thinks the Pope was decieved into thinking the civil war, in 1863, resembled some medieval attack on a castle from the 12th century!
What you have noted is that Davis PUBLICLY STATED his support for it and then did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to put those empty words into actions. He let the matter die in the confederate senate, probably because he had a rebellion to run and a supreme court would have gotten in his way.
False.
True. None of them indicate any actions that Davis took to get congress to staff the court. Davis doesn't bemoan the fact in his books, in fact he doesn't mention it. Why should he comment on something of so little importance to him?
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.