Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duty. Honor. Confederacy.
The Charlotte Post ^ | July 24, 2008 | Kimberly Harrington

Posted on 07/27/2008 7:52:45 AM PDT by cowboyway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: JamesP81; cowboyway
You must really enjoy these sorts of threads. I’ve always wondered about people who get enjoyment out of being obnoxious.

I've wondered that sometimes myself. Perhaps cowboyway can explain why he does it?

51 posted on 07/28/2008 10:30:16 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; Non-Sequitur

Thanks. As a sidenote from my previous posts, I spent a good portion of my weekend reading Shelby Foote’s first volume of “The Civil War: A Narrative” and now I can’t put the thing down.

I did want to thank the two of you and everyone else that replied to my earlier threads for all of your help. I appreciate it more than you know.


52 posted on 07/28/2008 1:28:23 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (Sarah Palin can be my running mate anytime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I've wondered that sometimes myself. Perhaps cowboyway can explain why he does it?

Ahhhh. Has NS's wuttle feelings been hurt?

53 posted on 07/28/2008 1:42:35 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

You’re hooked!


54 posted on 07/28/2008 1:52:24 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider; stainlessbanner

Follow stainless’s recommendations on sources relating to the confederacy and you won’t go wrong.


55 posted on 07/28/2008 2:25:35 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Ahhhh. Has NS's wuttle feelings been hurt?

By you? Hardly.

56 posted on 07/28/2008 2:26:18 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

57 posted on 07/28/2008 2:27:25 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
A compliment of sorts, Non? Why thankee

I try to keep it scholarly these days

58 posted on 07/28/2008 2:35:24 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
A compliment of sorts, Non? Why thankee.

A sincere complement.

59 posted on 07/28/2008 2:37:35 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Wether you choose to believe it or no, their WERE serving black Confederates. Around 600 from Texas alone.


60 posted on 07/28/2008 3:44:24 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; Non-Sequitur

Yeah, it’s pretty much all over for me! ;) I did find out that not only is a good portion of my grandmother’s side of the family from the South (Greeneville, TN was where they lived for much of the 19th Century), but my dad’s side of family had family that lived in Freeport, Illinois in the late 1850s. Strangely enough, Freeport was where one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates occurred.

But yeah, it’s pretty much all over for me, I’m now hooked. :)


61 posted on 07/28/2008 3:46:23 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (Sarah Palin can be my running mate anytime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider
I'm probably one of the few people on threads like these who cannot identify a relative who fought in the rebellion. My mother's people lived in eastern Tennessee during that period and while growing up she had told me that one of her relatives died during the war. At the time there were a couple of civil war programs on TV and I used to milk it for all it was worth among my peers, not only did I have a relative who fought in the Civil War but he was a Reb just like Johnny Yuma, and he died. Then about 17 or 18 years ago I attended a reunion of my mother's family and I had a chance to talk to someone who had the low-down on what had happened to my long, lost cousin. As it turned out, my relative wasn't a noble, Confederate warrior. He was a simple farmer in the Bristol area. He was also a Unionist, and in 1861 some of Isham Harris's men killed him for it.
62 posted on 07/28/2008 5:01:28 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Wether you choose to believe it or no, their WERE serving black Confederates. Around 600 from Texas alone.

There were probably more than that. The confederate army needed a lot of cooks, servants, laborers, and the like.

63 posted on 07/28/2008 5:02:47 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Why thankee.

Why thankee, Yankee.

Sounds better than way. I'm a poet, and didn't know it.

64 posted on 07/28/2008 5:03:51 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

...AND troops.


65 posted on 07/28/2008 6:03:57 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So...you were proud of the fact that you could have a Confederate relative UNTIL, you found out that he was in fact a Unionist.

Sounds kinda two-faced to me NS.

I found out that US Grant was an Uncle. That didn’t make ME want to go out and disavow my Confederate relatives!


66 posted on 07/28/2008 6:09:37 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
So...you were proud of the fact that you could have a Confederate relative UNTIL, you found out that he was in fact a Unionist.

Never said I wasn't proud of him. He was murdered by a band of thugs for supporting his country. Very typical of the rebel leaders of the time.

67 posted on 07/28/2008 6:36:16 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
...AND troops.

By law, that excluded blacks then. Until March 1865.

68 posted on 07/28/2008 6:38:48 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Officially, yes, but not all things were as they seemed.


69 posted on 07/28/2008 7:02:01 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
He was a simple farmer in the Bristol area. He was also a Unionist, and in 1861 some of Isham Harris's men killed him for it.

You sure it wasn't Parson "the Arson" Brownlow in 1866 having heard the same story about Johnny Yuma and such as you once believed.
70 posted on 07/28/2008 8:05:54 PM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: fella
Using your supplied link plus having dug out my dead tree copy I couldn’t find the account either. So The day and the field are yours.

Than my work here is done.

-btw Have you read anything else by Burke Davis? His book entitled "Grey Fox, Robert E. Lee and the Civil War" looks interesting

71 posted on 07/28/2008 9:08:29 PM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

No I haven’t but considering the time that he was writing in he may have actually interviewed some veterans of the conflict for some eyewitness accounts. I’ll check some of my favorite used book stores for some more of his works.


72 posted on 07/28/2008 11:35:21 PM PDT by fella (.He that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough." Pv.28:19')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: smug

Nope, it was 1861 in teh family Bible.


73 posted on 07/29/2008 3:59:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Wether you choose to believe it or no, their WERE serving black Confederates. Around 600 from Texas alone.

The revisionist historians will never accept anything that doesn't fit their politically correct, liberal agenda.

74 posted on 07/29/2008 5:42:15 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; TexConfederate1861
There were probably more than that. The confederate army needed a lot of cooks, servants, laborers, and the like.

Is serving in the military as "cooks, servants, laborers, and the like" dishonorable in your eyes, NS?

75 posted on 07/29/2008 5:47:48 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“so much for that ‘heritage not hate’ ya’ll spout”

That just applies to Blacks, not yankees.


76 posted on 07/29/2008 5:51:58 AM PDT by SWEETSUNNYSOUTH (Liberalism is a mental disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Is serving in the military as "cooks, servants, laborers, and the like" dishonorable in your eyes, NS?

No, but the implication you all are trying to make is that there were tens of thousands of blacks in combat roles in the confederate army, serving side by side with their white comrades as brothers in arms and valued fellow soldiers, blah, blah, blah. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tens of thousands of blacks served the confederate army in support roles. A certain percentage probably did so willingly. Blacks did not serve legally in combat roles until March 1865.

77 posted on 07/29/2008 5:54:09 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Tens of thousands of blacks served the confederate army in support roles.

Support roles are often in the line of fire and serve a very important role in keeping the military machine running.

Does a cook, which is an important part of the machine ("An army marches on its stomach." Napoleon Bonaparte), on a submarine escape unharmed if said submarine is torped?

Your original statement was to imply that "cooks, servants, laborers, and the like" were unimportant, less than honorable roles and now you're trying to weasel out of it with this typical NS rhetoric. Pathetic.

A certain percentage probably did so willingly.

Can you be specific about this "certain percentage" or is this just more of your biased conjecture.

Blacks did not serve legally in combat roles until March 1865.

By that statement, you're admitting that the Confederacy was, indeed, legal?

After all, an illegal entity can't grant legality.

How many times have you blathered that the Confederacy never existed because it was illegal to secede?

You can quit these threads now. You're busted.

Bye-bye, NS. We're gonna miss you......................NOT!

78 posted on 07/29/2008 6:26:31 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Your original statement was to imply that "cooks, servants, laborers, and the like" were unimportant, less than honorable roles and now you're trying to weasel out of it with this typical NS rhetoric. Pathetic.

Hardly.

Can you be specific about this "certain percentage" or is this just more of your biased conjecture.

More than zero and less than a hundred. It disputes those who would claim that, being slaves, none of the blacks supporting the confederate army could be considered to be their willingly, and disputes those like you who apparently think they all were.

By that statement, you're admitting that the Confederacy was, indeed, legal?

No. Legally based on what passed for law in the confederacy.

How many times have you blathered that the Confederacy never existed because it was illegal to secede?

Quite a few. How many times have you insisted that it did because the folks down there believed it did?

You can quit these threads now. You're busted.

ROTFLMAO!

79 posted on 07/29/2008 7:50:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
ROTFLMAO!

Careful. They'll put in that straight jacket again...........

80 posted on 07/29/2008 11:50:44 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

They may have to. You crack me up every time you post something. Each one is funnier than the one before, and I’m at the point now where I can’t tell if your being deliberately funny or completely dense. Either way, don’t stop now. Certainly not on my account.


81 posted on 07/29/2008 12:22:10 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
They may have to. You crack me up every time you post something. Each one is funnier than the one before, and I’m at the point now where I can’t tell if your being deliberately funny or completely dense. Either way, don’t stop now. Certainly not on my account.

Anything that I can do to push you over the edge is my pleasure.

After all, you already live in a world that is a complete construct of your mind..........but you probably hear that all the time.

BTW, I think that its great that they let you have unlimited access to the interweb. You must be in a private institution.


82 posted on 07/29/2008 12:38:42 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I'd Rather Be Historically Accurate Than Politically Correct.

You tend to be neither.

83 posted on 07/29/2008 12:43:47 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

You are so very correct, my friend. :)
All we can do is try!

Deo Vindice!


84 posted on 07/29/2008 1:16:55 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Not legally, but they DID serve.....


85 posted on 07/29/2008 1:19:20 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Not legally, but they DID serve.....

So it's been claimed.

86 posted on 07/29/2008 1:21:58 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Thanks for your explanation. I don’t disagree with most of it.

I would think it is at least as likely that Weary was just told to go along. In any case, he had no legal or practical right to make hiw own decision either way, so could be definition not be a real volunteer.


87 posted on 07/29/2008 4:46:39 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Lincoln refused to recognize that a regional minority had the right to destroy the Union established by the “people of the United States,” not by the States, or even by the people of the states. The “people of the United States” was the only group with the legitimate power of dissolving the Union.

Lincoln denied human freedoms to nobody. The seceding states could have returned to the Union at any time. Prior to the full implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation they could have returned and kept their slaves (although Congress would have had some input on this).

During Lincoln’s conference with Stephens in 1865 he said that states could return to the Union as long as they accepted the freeing of the slaves and the national authority as it had existed before the war. What human freedoms or civil rights was such a position denying the people of those states?


88 posted on 07/29/2008 4:57:59 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

No of that changes the contradiction between your tagline and Lincoln’s statement. He was willing to allow slavery. Period.

As far as “Lincoln refused to recognize that a regional minority had the right to destroy the Union established by the “people of the United States,”...that’s stupid on its face. The “Union” could not be established by the “people of the United States” because they did not belong to the “United States” when it was the people of the INDEPENDENT STATES established the Union. Your statement makes absolutely no sense.


89 posted on 07/29/2008 5:08:19 PM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Ahh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the Lincoln was denying freedom to southerners who wished to secede.

Instead, you are claiming that his recognition of the constitutional right of slavery to exist where it was established constituted him “denying freedom to others.”

I would disagree. Lincoln created no new slaves, he merely adopted the position of most of the Founders that slavery should not be permitted to spread farther so that in the long run it would stew in its own juices and eventually fall apart. He allowed others their legal right to deny freedom, he did not practice the denial himself.

Ronald Reagan recognized that the people of eastern Europe and USSR were enslaved. He called publicly for their freeing and worked towards that eventual happy day. He did not, however, invade those countries to free the people.

Did his recognition that he had not legal or practical way to free those slaves mean that he was personally denying them their freedom?


90 posted on 07/29/2008 5:18:38 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

The states were not Independent States when the Constitution and its Union was established. They were part of a previous Union, which was closed down in order to “establish a more perfect Union.”


91 posted on 07/29/2008 5:21:03 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

LOL! And which union was that again... the Imperfect Union? Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.


92 posted on 07/29/2008 5:40:07 PM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

The states formed a Union under the Articles of Confederation in 1777. It continued in effect until 1789 when the government established under the Constitution started operations.

The Constitutional Convention was quite explicitly established to suggest modifications to the Articles that would help its government function more effectively. So at the time the Constitutional Convention was held, the states had not been independent for 10 years.


93 posted on 07/29/2008 6:10:03 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Uh... that wasn’t a union. It was a confederation. Words have meaning. And the way you used them in your previous posts to me do not apply to the last one. You can just make stuff up as you go along. Go to a liberal web site for that.


94 posted on 07/29/2008 6:12:55 PM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You tend to be neither.

You tend to be only one; politically correct.

How are the Obama signs in your front yard holding up?

95 posted on 07/30/2008 6:49:20 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
How are the Obama signs in your front yard holding up?

Ah how typical. The second to last refuge of the Southron scoundrel is accusing his opponent of being liberal. The fact that you have no evidence to support your claim is irrelevant. You never have evidence to support your claims.

The last refuge of the Southron scoundrel is accusing his opponent of being black. I expect that at any moment.

96 posted on 07/30/2008 7:03:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I would think it is at least as likely that Weary was just told to go along.

A lot of free white boys were probably just told to go along, also.

And using NS's logic concerning the Confederacy, since slavery was ruled illegal in the South after the war, then Weary never was slave.

(NS claims the South never seceded and the Confederacy never existed because a SCOTUS decision in 1869 ruled that secession was illegal. It's easy to understand why he's in a mental institute.)

97 posted on 07/30/2008 7:07:51 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Well at least now you know who has been vandalizing your yard...;’}


98 posted on 07/30/2008 7:09:48 AM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; Sherman Logan
And using NS's logic concerning the Confederacy, since slavery was ruled illegal in the South after the war, then Weary never was slave.

Let me point out that statements like this one are a big reason why the words 'logic' and 'cowboyway' don't often collide in the same sentence.

99 posted on 07/30/2008 7:23:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Lincoln refused to recognize that a regional minority had the right to destroy the Union established by the “people of the United States,” not by the States, or even by the people of the states.

Lincoln was a centralist dictator wannabe and if he hadn't got shot he probably would have made himself king.

Lincoln set our once representative republic on the course to centralization. Are you happy with that? 545 people tell the other 300 million what to do all from their power base in DC. This is not what the Founders had in mind. They wrote extensively about the corruption that would exist under the type of government that we are subjected to today and they were right. The Federalists of that period built the notion of mixed government into the U.S. Constitution. In many details, they strove for a balance between the one president, the few Senators and the Representatives of the many. Something that is, unfortunately, lost and forgotten today is the pivotal role of the States in all this and you can blame Lincoln directly for that. The power and independent authority of the states were essential elements in the mixed, balanced government formed in 1787. The yankees destroyed that balance by rendering the states impotent and leaving them begging for the scrappings that the Great White Fathers in DC would dole out to them, based on their performing like circus animals.

BTW, your statement above isn't accurate. Virginia and New York made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.


100 posted on 07/30/2008 7:32:12 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson