Posted on 04/02/2002 9:45:23 PM PST by VinnyTex
Yes. What a joke.
"Both Jeff Davis and Louis Wigfall, before resigning from the US Senate to go south, threatened the burning of Northern cities and the plunder of their populations as punishment (US Senate, CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,10 Jan. 1861).
Stonewall Jackson urged the adoption of this policy (Henderson, STONEWALL JACKSON AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, London, 1898), adding that Confederate troops should fight under the "Black Flag" - no quarter, kill all prisoners - and proposing to Virginia Governor Letcher a week after Virginia's secession that he, Jackson, should set the example (Columbia, SC, DAILY SOUTH CAROLINIAN, 6 Feb. 1864).
--Posted on AOL
Walt
Also, there is nothing to prevent rdf from answering in the negative; that is, simply stating that he will not answer those questions.
However, instead of doing that he sought to change the subject (for obvious reasons) and I called him on it.
It is his actions, not mine, that are clearly demonstrating the ludicrous nature of his position that Ape Linkum was acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
You know I believe you have them pegged. Good work.
"There is nothing to prevent me, in civil discourse, from requesting that rdf answer a couple of questions. If you look at my original post you will see that that is exactly what I did.
Also, there is nothing to prevent rdf from answering in the negative; that is, simply stating that he will not answer those questions.
However, instead of doing that he sought to change the subject (for obvious reasons) ."
And in your first post on this thread, you wrote:
Why don't we shift gears on this thread? ... and then posed your questions.
Why don't we not "shift gears" on this thread, and why won't you admit that DiLorenzo is defending calumny, as I had argued from the first.
Then, I'll be delighted to "shift gears," and discuss your questions one by one.
Cheers,
Richard F.
OK let's take 'em one at a time; we are now getting somewhere. I will post a new thread and we will discuss the NARROW issue of whether or not the Ape's suspension of Habeas Corpus was constitutional and what precedents it set. I appreciate your other... er... "research" and we will get to those later.
Agreed?
All you had to do was say that in the first place so that it was out in the open that you would not, when asked, defend the laundry list of the Ape's tyrannical actions.
Now, to answer your question; no, I will not move on to the subject of DiLorenzo until you defend the Ape.
You see, I asked first.
A gentleman would either decline and offer why or answer. What you did was dishonest and you know it. (as does everyone else reading this thread)
Why don't you do so and title it along these lines:
SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS, DOES THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW IT AND HOW?
Just a suggestion; you title it the way you see fit. I would be interested in exploring that issue and would welcome input from both camps.
So what? It never mentioned the word Air Force either. If we simply do a word search, we can 'prove' or disprove' anything we want. You have to look for original intent.
The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.
-- Robert E. Lee, Jan. 1861
You will not find the word secession in the debates or the Federalist Papers either because the Framers did not imagine such nonsense. Even old Bobby knew he was about to commit Revolution. He did not delude himself into thinking secession was Constitutional.
Your first 2 posts on this thread were these:
To: VinnyTex I am done with Keyes. He is just more of the same ____. 15 posted on 4/3/02 7:42 AM Pacific by one2many [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Captain Shady The book mentioned above would seem to describe an American Slobadan Milosevic. Yeah, our recent Caligula from Little Rock would have operated this way had the circumstances been right for doing so! 16 posted on 4/3/02 7:45 AM Pacific by one2many [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Only after these, and my attempts to document calumny, did you endeavor to change the subject.
My apologies.
Richard F.
So it must be God's truth.
So YOU'RE the next to play Black Knight to my King Arthur?
Listen; unless you can match legal credentials with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I am afraid his opinion is going to hold sway.
Since you have no arms or legs on this issue, I'll be sure and keep out of reach of your teeth.
Walt
LOL. Behind on your distemper shots?
On third thought, you need to respond to my posts in this thread between 141-150 that were made to your cutting and pasting from Dilorenzo's fantasy article in #54.
Walt
I clearly asked you first to respond. That could have simply been declined on your part but it wasn't. Prior to my post below you had never spoken to me on the thread:
To: rdf; davidjquackenbush; whiskeypapa; non_sequitur
Why don't we shift gears on this thread. DiLorenzo's core contention is that Lincoln trashed the Constitution. I believe we are all in agreement on that. So why don't you Lincoln apologists take the below, point by point, and provide what you consider constitutional justification for each action:
So common courtesy obligates you to respond first if you expect me to respond to your question. I am glad we are in agreement. So I assume you will now defend the Ape's actions.
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.