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

Skip to comments.

The Great Civil War Lie
NY Times Disunion ^ | June 5, 2013 | MARC-WILLIAM PALEN

Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 next last
To: Mouton
If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States.

Uh huh.

51 posted on 06/11/2013 11:45:04 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
I did not say there was violence about the collection of tariffs, just that the union fortified all important port entries like to Charleston which was a major financial provider.

The Union didn't fortify the entry to Savannah or New Orleans or Mobile or any of the really important Southern ports. And it didn't interfere with traffic in and out of Pensacola and Charleston.

No argument, the south fired first, in april, after providing orders to leave.

If I ordered you to leave your property would you do it?

52 posted on 06/11/2013 11:47:50 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

And unrepentant Dixiecrats too.


53 posted on 06/11/2013 12:17:24 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

“The Union didn’t fortify the entry to Savannah or New Orleans or Mobile or any of the really important Southern ports. And it didn’t interfere with traffic in and out of Pensacola and Charleston.”

They did not have time, SC was the first to say bye bye.

“If I ordered you to leave your property would you do it?”
If I was there illegally I would! OK, not being silly, suppose the state took this matter to court i.e. could a state seceed. What court would have jurisdiction? I don’t believe there was a world court at that time, perhaps a world court of public opinion which in fact the state appealed to for their establishing their own nation state. The supreme court? Well, that would be a court aligned with the nation they wanted to leave, no? Another point, am I responsible for my parents’ contracts. Of course not, so why can a state not leave of its own volition?

Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies. I wish that had been resolved by legal means, not by battle which solves nothing, but letting the winner dictate terms and write the history.


54 posted on 06/11/2013 12:18:04 PM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies. I wish that had been resolved by legal means, not by battle which solves nothing, but letting the winner dictate terms and write the history.

Lost Causers often try to assert a comparison between the patriots of our Revolutionary War and the slavers of the Civil War. There's not much to compare. The colonists tried for years to gain the right to sit at the table in Parliament. The south didn't ever try - they just did what they wanted and hang the cost. Winners always dictate the terms but, unlike so very many wars before it, the south wasn't prevented from noting it's own history - or mythology.

55 posted on 06/11/2013 12:36:14 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

“or mythology.”

I said it in another post so I will reiterate it: if it were not for that part of the revolution fought by and in the southern colonies, there would have been no US. Also, don’t be so naive, the revolution was fought not only for moral issues but also over monetary matters.

Slavery was an underlying cause of the WBTS, but it was not the paramount issue. I say underlying because it was the engine which kept the southern aggrarian economy working as mechanization was a dream. The issue it underlayed was monetary driven by tariffs. I missed any reference to slavery in the proclamation to arms by Lincoln which further supports my position. That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.


56 posted on 06/11/2013 1:03:07 PM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
South Carolina before the war between the states was paying a significant part of the federal budget, far more than say Massachusettes, in excise taxes. This caused those in South Carolina to begin a secession movement as early as 1835 in its legislature.

The US did not have an excise taxes in 1835 or in 1860. Even the Whiskey tax was long gone.

57 posted on 06/11/2013 1:07:07 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

If you really want to get the spittle flying suggest to one of the Lincoln Coven that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy. That really gets their heads spinning like Linda Blair on pea soup.


58 posted on 06/11/2013 1:08:00 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

People in SC paid taxes, a lot of taxes, that pile of rubble in the middle of the Cooper River was paid for 10x over when the Feds were given the boot.


59 posted on 06/11/2013 1:11:20 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
They did not have time, SC was the first to say bye bye.

I'm not sure what your point is. None of the other Southern ports were fortified by any troops that hadn't been there when their state left.

What court would have jurisdiction?

Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2.

Well, that would be a court aligned with the nation they wanted to leave, no?

But their only recourse while a part of the U.S.

...so why can a state not leave of its own volition?

Madison said that the logical conclusion of the claim that a state could leave without the consent of the other states is that the other states could expel a state without its consent. Would you agree with that?

Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies.

Didn't try very hard.

60 posted on 06/11/2013 1:13:11 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

You mean, the liberal media lied about that too?


61 posted on 06/11/2013 1:15:35 PM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." - B. Franklin

What you said upstream was "If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States" which, besides being sorta self-serving, is only partially true. The truth is that all the colonies needed each other if we were to survive.

The issue it underlayed was monetary driven by tariffs.

Not true

That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.

Not true

62 posted on 06/11/2013 1:20:52 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

“That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.

Not true”

Actually it is truer than blue. Interestingly, some Northern generals or their families were slave holders FWIW.


63 posted on 06/11/2013 1:41:10 PM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I see it as spin. The US Republic was notorious in its early days in using tariffs to protect industries, which frankly only went to reward some (northern industry) at the expense of others (the South). Did we really need 650,000 dead to solve this issue though?
64 posted on 06/11/2013 1:51:48 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
Reminds me of the saintification of FDR and the Democrats by official Jewry. Yet, FDR was a vocal anti-semite.
65 posted on 06/11/2013 1:52:57 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Exactly. The North already had an economic leg up on the south in that most industry was located there, so why did they need an added political gift of what amounted to subsidies, called tariffs?


66 posted on 06/11/2013 1:55:11 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I agree. The whole basis for British involvement in WWII was to knock Germany down a peg. The British never did and never would endure a rival on the open seas.


67 posted on 06/11/2013 1:56:45 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Wow, I didn't know Toryism would come into this conversation. As a Canadian, Toryism is a real and constant threat. Vocal Tories make the preservation of tradition and authority a religion that causes them to hate everything American and everything Whig. That is why Herbert Spencer is a hero for me. You could say Toryism goes all the way back to the Cavaliers who supported the King and official state religion. Whigs would hail back to the Roundheads and the Republican ideals of Cromwell.
68 posted on 06/11/2013 2:00:02 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; Mouton
The US did not have an excise taxes in 1835 or in 1860. Even the Whiskey tax was long gone.

And here I was thinking those Gamecocks or Palmettos were drinking up a storm.

No wonder old times there weren't forgotten (or remembered very clearly either).

I guess Mouton meant import taxes (tariffs).

Of course, the problem is that Southern exports were high but the tariffs were imposed on imports.

Because of all the activity and circulation of money in the national economy, it wasn't necessarily true that those who got the most money from exports actually paid the most in taxes on imports.

69 posted on 06/11/2013 2:01:44 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

I agree, but then what role did the Republican abolitionists and Lincoln play? Were they useful idiots for the power brokers that wanted to game to continue to be played, or were they a part of the conspiracy?


70 posted on 06/11/2013 2:02:14 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Yet Northerners were far more bigoted than Southerners. A Southerner would never have used the word “Nigger” for instance, which Northerners clumsily tossed around.
71 posted on 06/11/2013 2:03:34 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Which to me is the proof in the pudding that Federalists like Alexander Hamilton were wrong and the anti-federalists were right. The size and scope of the current US government is proof that the idea of a strong authoritative Executive was a bad idea.
72 posted on 06/11/2013 2:05:44 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

>> Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery...

The Civil War was over slavery? Really?


73 posted on 06/11/2013 2:06:19 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
Yet Northerners were far more bigoted than Southerners. A Southerner would never have used the word “Nigger” for instance, which Northerners clumsily tossed around.

When you believe a race is fit for slavery and nothing else does it matter what you call them?

74 posted on 06/11/2013 2:08:23 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Touche. I am not willing to absolve the South for slavery, but I am not convinced of the angelic image that has been painted of Lincoln and the North either.


75 posted on 06/11/2013 2:10:21 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee; rockrr; Ditto
Yet Northerners were far more bigoted than Southerners. A Southerner would never have used the word “Nigger” for instance, which Northerners clumsily tossed around.

In 1860? Absurd. I don't know if current scruples about the word existed back then, but I'm pretty sure that plenty of Southerners "clumsily tossed the word around."

76 posted on 06/11/2013 2:19:19 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: x

Depends if you believe “Gone with the Wind” (the book) is truth or propaganda.


77 posted on 06/11/2013 3:05:04 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O; Mouton
Madison said that the logical conclusion of the claim that a state could leave without the consent of the other states is that the other states could expel a state without its consent.

LOL! Really? You've still posting from the body of that (keep it under you hat) letter of Madison's without posting the beginning where it says:

A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.
James Madison to Alexander Rivas, Jan, 1833.

How totally disappointing. I'd thought better of you.

-------

>>Pardon my buttinskiness, Mouton, but this was posted to you, so...FReeper etiquette and all that. :-)

78 posted on 06/11/2013 4:03:42 PM PDT by MamaTexan (The government was not instituted to define the Rights of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
Touche. I am not willing to absolve the South for slavery, but I am not convinced of the angelic image that has been painted of Lincoln and the North either.

Suffice it to say that the South was, at best, no different than the North in this regard?

79 posted on 06/11/2013 4:21:38 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

You take the prize for the stupidest comment of the day. I learned that particular epithet while living in the south where it was indeed tossed about with reckless abandon.

Kudos


80 posted on 06/11/2013 4:23:43 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Really? I’ve heard otherwise. I know a white woman that fled the South because of the black on white racism so prevalent there. She says all this talk about racism is made up.
81 posted on 06/11/2013 4:27:46 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.

Well OK, if it's the Rives letter you want then fine. What about this part here?

"The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains."

So the Southern states claimed that the compact was abused and was dissolved. What made them right and the Northern states wrong, when they said the compact had not been abused and was not dissolved?

82 posted on 06/11/2013 4:33:58 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

What’s that got to do with either your comment or mine?


83 posted on 06/11/2013 4:34:49 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
A Southerner would never have used the word “Nigger” for instance, which Northerners clumsily tossed around.

I grew up in the south in the 60s. "Nigger" was used by many of the whites in my rural neighborhood. I heard it from kids and adults. My parents taught me better, but most of my schoolmates and their parents had no qualms about it. Use of the word died down in the 70s and 80s.

84 posted on 06/11/2013 4:37:41 PM PDT by Drawsing (The fool shows his annoyance at once. The prudent man overlooks an insult. (Proverbs 12:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
The US Republic was notorious in its early days in using tariffs to protect industries, which frankly only went to reward some (northern industry) at the expense of others (the South).

Why? Were tariffs only collected in the South?

85 posted on 06/11/2013 4:38:52 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
Well OK, if it's the Rives letter you want then fine. What about this part here?

I didn't say anything about 'wanting' the Rivas letter, I was calling you out because you tried the same thing several days ago. I made the point then that:

1) The Rivas letter is marked confidential and is the only letter I've seen by Madison that contains this proviso:

Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel. Among the reasons is the risk of misapprehensions or misconstructions,

2) AND the paper Madison was writing ABOUT cannot be found, so we really don't have much of point of reference for what he is speaking OF.

I'm not going to play 'nitpick the letter' with someone who has just displayed such intellectual dishonesty and a blatant disregard for the facts on the subject.

86 posted on 06/11/2013 4:56:40 PM PDT by MamaTexan (The government was not instituted to define the Rights of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States

It was New Englanders, not southerners, who stood up with weapons and opposed the British to begin the Revolution, and the war was fought for three years in the north before the British even had an army in the south, when they sent troops from New York to capture Charleston.

87 posted on 06/11/2013 5:14:38 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
What made them right and the Northern states wrong, when they said the compact had not been abused and was not dissolved?

Because the Northern States had already been violating the compact for almost 40 years. In fact, the violations we SO flagrant, it was mentioned

by the Appeals court for US Supreme Court Jack v. Martin in 1835
and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided.

As well as being mentioned in a speech by Daniel Webster in 1851;
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.

----

I posted this material on the other thread and you totally ignored it, but with your recent behavior, I guess now I know why.

88 posted on 06/11/2013 5:23:51 PM PDT by MamaTexan (The government was not instituted to define the Rights of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks iowamark.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


89 posted on 06/11/2013 5:43:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
1) The Rivas letter is marked confidential and is the only letter I've seen by Madison that contains this proviso:

And I'd reply that a hundred years ago Gaillard Hunt edited Madison's papers into nine volumes. Unless you've gone through all those papers then you have no way of knowing just how many letters Madison requested be kept confidential.

) AND the paper Madison was writing ABOUT cannot be found, so we really don't have much of point of reference for what he is speaking OF.

You can't take Madison's words on their own? So be it. Still, two essays written by someone using the pseudonym "A Friend Of The Union And States Rights" it probably isn't hard to imagine what he was writing about.

90 posted on 06/11/2013 6:12:22 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Because the Northern States had already been violating the compact for almost 40 years.

So two people and you make it so? Thanks for clearing that up for us.

91 posted on 06/11/2013 6:14:53 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Those poor dears. Not allowed to abuse their slaves without suffering the disapproving glances from their neighbors. It must have been absolutely horrid.


92 posted on 06/11/2013 6:18:11 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
And I'd reply that a hundred years ago Gaillard Hunt edited Madison's papers into nine volumes.

Big whoop.

-------

Unless you've gone through all those papers then you have no way of knowing just how many letters Madison requested be kept confidential.

Um...What part of "the only letter I've seen" did you not understand?

-----

You can't take Madison's words on their own?

I can, just fine. Dealing with someone who acts as if only certain words in the letter have any viability while totally disregarding the rest is what I have trouble with.

93 posted on 06/11/2013 6:40:42 PM PDT by MamaTexan (The government was not instituted to define the Rights of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
So two people and you make it so?

Okay, so the US Supreme Court of Appeals, who sets LEGAL precedent , and states the law is Constitutional and is binding on EVERYONE...... is totally meaningless.

Oh, that's right, I forgot.

You only acknowledge those things if they agree with your agenda.

Alllrightythen!

94 posted on 06/11/2013 6:47:15 PM PDT by MamaTexan (The government was not instituted to define the Rights of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Not allowed to abuse their slaves without suffering the disapproving glances from their neighbors

Remember what I'd said the other day about you having risen a little bit in my opinion?

Never mind.

95 posted on 06/11/2013 6:50:00 PM PDT by MamaTexan (The government was not instituted to define the Rights of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

Hood and Sherman used the same word for members of the African race during their correspondence.

I recently read it, so consider that a couple of data points, not necessarily indicative of anything in particular.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Since there were no voice recorders, who said what to whom at that time can never be known. Perhaps one might back off a bit on the accusations for what can never be known.

You note my style is to make a statement, and after the Rebs take offense with it, to post the evidence.


96 posted on 06/11/2013 7:13:40 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I knew you were mercurial so it comes as no surprise.

The point stands. The south had no legitimate complaint. They were whiners who couldn’t stand it even when they were winning.


97 posted on 06/11/2013 7:16:12 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Lee owned slaves. His family owned slaves. Jackson owned slaves. Jeff davis owned slaves.

Lee fathered slaves. Jeff Davis fathered slaves. It was common, but not much spoken of in polite conversation.


98 posted on 06/11/2013 7:16:21 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

Lincoln was a significant player in the R. Party in illinois. The R party wanted to limit slavery from the territories. It was widely believed that the domestic institutions of the states could not be changed by the federal government under normal circumstances, but the status of Slavery could be controlled by the Congress.

Abolitionists saw that as a very small but perhaps achievable step toward elimination of slavery. Abolitionists wanted slavery abolished.


99 posted on 06/11/2013 7:19:48 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The first thing Lee did when he returned from the Army to execute his father in law’s will was to put up whipping posts.

And he made sure they were used. He was known as a cruel slave master before the war.


100 posted on 06/11/2013 7:22:01 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 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