Posted on 05/08/2002 9:17:51 AM PDT by Korth
Here is the letter President Lincoln wrote on the subject:
Hon. Secretary of War
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. May 17, 1864
Please notify the insurgents, through the proper military channels and forms, that the government of the United States has satisfactory proof of the massacre, by the insurgent forces at Fort-Pillow, on the 12th and 13th days of April last, of fully ____ white and colored officers and soldiers of the United States, after the latter had ceased resistance, and asked quarter of the former.
That with reference to said massacre, the government of the United States has assigned and set apart by name _____ insurgent officers, theretofore, and up to that time, held by said government as prisoners of war.
That, as blood can not restore blood, and governments should not act for revenge, any assurance, as nearly as perfect as the case admits, given on or before the first day of July next, that there be shall be no more similar massacre, nor any officer or soldier of the United States, whether white or colored, now held, or hereafter captured by the insurgents, shall be treated other than according to the laws of war, will insure the replacing of said _____ insurgent officers in the simple condition of prisoner of war.
That the insurgents having refused either to exchange, or to give any account or explanation in regard to colored soldiers of the United States captured by them, a number of insurgent prisoners equal to the number of such colored soldiers supposed to have been captured by said insurgents will, from time to time, be asigned and set aside, with reference to such captured colored soldiers, and will, if the insurgents assent, be exchanged for such colored soldiers; but that if no satisfactory attention shall be given to this notice, by said insurgents, on or before the first day of July next, it will be assumed by the government of the United States, that said captured colored troops shall have been murdered, or subjected to Slavery, and that said government will, upon said assumption, take such action as may then appear expedient and just.
A. Lincoln
A lot of what CSA apologism tries to relate as federal barbarity were actions taken in response to the brutal treatment of black Union soldiers by CSA forces.
Walt
No. It's a consisten posting name i have used on FR for several years. I do not use any other names to post here, though I could not confidently say the same about you. This is especially true considering that you have basically admitted to using over a dozen fake names in an attempt to gain access to a message board where you were not welcome to post by decision of that board's owners.
I always sign my name.
No. You sign your purported first name, which is your choice but certainly isn't necessary for posting at FR.
That's funny, cause the ONLY correspondence I have seen from them to you, the one you posted, was a direct request of you to cease posting there.
Oh, I don't recall insulting them personally.
And I am sure you would maintain the same about your behavior here, but that in no way makes it true. In fact, I know first hand that your posting behavior here more than occasionally delves into the realm of unsubstantiated personal insults.
They didn't want me there because their whold position -- like yours-- is based on myth and disinformation.
I cannot speak for them, but I can speak for myself. In doing so, I accordingly ask that you substantiate your allegation against me by citing any such "myth" or item of "disinformation." Otherwise, I may reject them in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I also ask that you bear in mind that I could easily and repeatedly have cited you for cases where you have lied, distorted, willfully ignored, and propagated what you know to be myth.
The historical record to the CSA position is like sunlight on a vampire.
How would you know, Walt? As I have indicated, you wouldn't know the historical record if it was a nuclear submarine lodged in your forehead.
I do indeed know. They informed you directly based on your own admission that they did not want you there.
"Walt, whiskpop3@aol.com was recorded about a week ago. Just wanted you to know you are being watched. If this trend continues, the following list of email addresses you regsitered in the past will be used as evidence and be given to the proper authorities at AOL for a possible cancelation on your account. walterm140@aol.com lngremmbr@aol.com rojolobo1@aol.com cutiedomi@aol.com volsgoone@aol.com rubyeg@aol.co tennfierce@aol.com histry101@aol.com histry1001@aol.com histry1oo1@aol.com unionmn17@aol.com whiskpop@aol.com whiskpop1@aol.com popwhisk2@aol.com whiskpop3@aol.com My advice is to quit abusing the Dixie Perspective rebboard. John Davis Rebmaster, Dixie Perspective"
In other words, they expressly indicated to you that (1) they did not want you there, (2) they were requesting you not to post there, and (3) they were willing to contact your ISP provider for action if you continued to violate that legitimate request. Sadly, you appear to be too stupid to even realize that much.
Of course you don't much let the truth get in the way of what you say.
If that is so, substantiate it. I have just substantiated it to be true regarding you yourself. Now it is your turn, since you made the original accusation. Otherwise, I may yet again reject it in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Have a nice day!
Re-read, or better yet read for the first time, your Constitution, Walt. Freedom of speech does NOT give you a right to enter into a private meeting and proceed to insult those there against their requests that you leave that meeting.
I NEVER violated their posting procedures. Ever.
They apparently thought otherwise and in fact specifically cited you for ABUSE of their message board in that warning letter. As they are the owners of the board itself, that makes them the authority on what goes there and what does not. They classified your behavior as abuse, and therefore it was abuse.
They -said- they wanted an exchange of ideas, but they didn't.
Are you sure of that? Or was it that they simply did not wish to hear the heavily selective, openly hostile, and frequently dishonest version of self-constructed historical myth that you regularly propagate on Free Republic and likely propagated there as well?
After they changed to asking for reasons one should be allowed to post, i stopped posting.
Good for you. Now why didn't you also stop posting when, in the same letter you posted here, they specifically asked you to do so?
I suspect there is some truth to that. However, there were atrocities on both sides. It is difficult to know what the truth was when there are conflicting stories.
As a result of FR and some of your posts, I've looked into this time period more deeply than I otherwise would have. Thanks.
PINKO ALERT
Hi Wlat you disingenuous ole serf you. I think these good people should know how you and your fellow travelers vote!
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:
==================================
Leesylvanian:
Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!
Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):
Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt
780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
cheers,
Richard F.
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.