Posted on 11/03/2004 8:24:39 AM PST by Always Right
My history books said the south lost the Civil War, but apparently that was just a battle. The south lost the battle of 1861-1865, but now are winning the war.
Excuse the map, I could not find one that had all the states colored in.
You claimed that Fort Davis was captured by a military force - your words, not mine - when in fact the fort was (a) abandoned, (b) never formally garrisoned by the supposed "capturing" force, and (c) abandoned again after they used it as a campsite for a total of one single night.
Neither the Missouri nor Kentucky lost their representation in the US Congress.
Lincoln had their senators booted and replaced with his own puppets. He did the same thing with the state governments in Missouri and Maryland, which he rigged in his favor via voter fraud in their next state election.
The actions of renegade legislatures or insurrectionist conventions had no effect on the continuation of those states' loyalty to the Union.
You're still affirming the consequent of your own lame argument. You do so because your argument is not derived from reason and you refuse to employ reason to derive an alternative. That being the case, I see no purpose in attempting to get you to think about it any further.
There were important mineral discoveries throughout the American West in the 1840's and 1850's. Colorado and Nevada both saw gold and silver strikes in 1858.
La-de-da. That still doesn't make California any closer to, say, Gettysburg or Fredericksburg or Vicksburg or even Mesilla for that matter. Bottom line: the far west was on the outer periphery of the war and had barely anything to do with it at all. That which did occur happened in New Mexico and Arizona, which were and are still hundreds of miles away from the territories you speak about.
And every loyal State and Territory in the West provided an allotment of militia, many of whom freed up Federal regulars to return east.
Yeah, all two dozen of them! I'm sure those yankee feds in the east sure felt happy about their "contribution"!
The term I originally used, "sparsely," is accurate. Though you wish to downplay the actual number of people who resided there, there was a substantial population which continued to grow during the war. You can compre the 1860 census figures to the 1870 census figures yourself.
"... and I'm not at all inclined to believe that they are without a source given your lengthy history of fraudulently fabricating court decisions, quotations, and even civil war battles to suit your argument."
I thought I told you not to spread your lies here. Do you get the finger? Sorry, Freudian slip.
"To make a semantic dispute out of it also indicates your affliction with a severe anal retentive disorder, and one that has been festering for quite some time."
Since you seem not to claim any medical training, I assume you are familiar with the terminolgy by experience. You are falling quickly into your old bad habits. Lose the argument; start the trash talking. Like I said before, you long ago ceased to be a serious poster here.
You are hardly one to be accusing others of poor taste. Take your hatred elsewhere.
Indeed they were not. They were operating under the direct lineal successor of the 1776 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which predates both the Constitution of 1787 and the union itself. Virginia did not need the Constitution of 1787 for their own Constitution to be in place.
You again misrepresent what I wrote. I simply used the term "captured." "Capture" is defined as "to take poseession of." My terminology was, again, correct. You continue to spread your lies here. Have you no shame?
"Yeah, all two dozen of them! I'm sure those yankee feds in the east sure felt happy about their "contribution"!"
Well, it seems that the western states and territories militia chased those Texans all the way back to San Antonio!
Not at all! The actions of the Neosho "legislative" session and the Kentucky convention were legally invalid and of no consequence. Neither body had any right or legal power to conduct business in behalf of the loyal citizens of the states. They were not much more than criminal enterprises.
If that's what you want to call it fine by me. The point is, though, that there was virtually nobody there.
Though you wish to downplay the actual number of people who resided there
Provide a source on that "actual number" if you intend to discuss it further. Either way though, for 800,000 square miles of land the population was virtually negligable.
I thought I told you not to spread your lies here.
It's no matter of lie, capitan, on anybody's part but your own. You made up supreme court decisions and got caught. You attempted to insert extraneous material into those decisions and got caught. You claimed that yankee troops engaged in the military capture of a fort which turned out to be abandoned and which they did not even hold. It's all a matter of record right here on FR and that record shows that you are a filthy liar.
Since you seem not to claim any medical training, I assume you are familiar with the terminolgy by experience.
I was trying to put it in a milder way, but I guess I'll say it bluntly. You're full of crap, capitan, and one doesn't need medical training to know or see that fact.
Lose the argument; start the trash talking.
I take it then that your surrender began a couple dozen posts or so back.
God forbid! There'd be no place left for us Americans.
There's that anal retention kicking in again, capitan. You used "capture" in the common military sense, which EVERY SINGLE DICTIONARY out there defines as a forceful or strategic act of taking possession of something against the will of another. Nothing of the sort ever happened at Fort Davis
American Heritage Dictionary: "To take captive, as by force or craft; seize"
Websters: "The act of seizing by force, or getting possession of by superior power or by stratagem; as, the capture of an enemy, a vessel, or a criminal."
Princeton WordNet: "The act of forcibly dispossessing an owner of property"
What's even more telling is that your yankee troops did not even "take possession" of Fort Davis! They camped out there for one night and left the next morning, never to return until 1867!
Well, it seems that the western states and territories militia chased those Texans all the way back to San Antonio!
Incorrect as usual. The Texans never even met the californy militia save for a single skirmish outside of Tuscon. They retreated after a couple months of fighting with the federal regulars who had been out their in frontier garrisons all along.
Nobody doubts that Kentucky was a rump convention. Neosho is another story as it involved the ONLY legally elected and republican form of government in the state of Missouri. Both the witness accounts and the newspapers say there was a quorum present and you have yet to produce any evidence otherwise.
There were hundreds of thousands of people in the western states and territories - there was just a lot of open land - still is.
"Provide a source on that "actual number" if you intend to discuss it further."
1860 census agumented by Westward Expansion by Ray Allen Billington. But you can do your own homework. I did not "make up" any Supreme Court decisions. I mistook a New York case for a USSC case and posted a retraction the next day. That is what honest posters do. Dishonest posters, like yourself, only tell the half-truth. John Kerry would be proud of you and your conduct this evening!
"You claimed that yankee troops engaged in the military capture of a fort which turned out to be abandoned and which they did not even hold .... record shows that you are a filthy liar."
You are getting hysterical now. I made no such claim. All I ever stated was that the company rode it, again took possession, and raised the flag. Anything beyond that are your lies and misrepresentations. And for every lie you make, I will reply with the truth.
All my choices were Republicans. There were no Party of Lincoln candidates on my ballot.
Not so. The Missouri State Convention was legally elected. It lawfully disposed of the insurrectionist, criminal, government-in-absentia of Claiborne Jackson. Like the case of Kentucky, there was no legitimacy to the actions of the Jackson "government." Thanks to Congressman Blair and General Lyon, the state remained secure within the Union.
Really? I wasn't at all confused by it. Try reading it again.
...spread out over more than 800,000 square miles of land (over a million square miles if you toss in NM-AZ and the coastal territories, where most of the population you cite was).
I did not "make up" any Supreme Court decisions. I mistook a New York case for a USSC case and posted a retraction the next day.
You also attempted to pass off extraneous material and dissents as the case ruling on four or five different cases. I don't recall many retraction or apologies for those, though you certainly attempted to escape culpability through drawn out semantics arguments.
You are getting hysterical now. I made no such claim. All I ever stated was that the company rode it, again took possession, and raised the flag.
You used the word "capture" and used it in an inescapable military context. You also claimed that this alleged "capture" struck a morale blow to the confederacy. In reality they "captured" nothing as there was nothing there to "capture" it from and they themselves didn't even stay. Nor did the confederacy even know that they had been there because the place was out in the middle of nowhere with no civilization for hundreds of miles around it and nobody from the confederacy on hand to either loose possession of the fort or witness anything at all that ever happened there.
You severely overstated the significance of a one night campfire hoping nobody would notice. Well, they did notice and it exposed you as the filthy liar you are.
Yours is a problem of interpretation and comprehension.
"Incorrect as usual. The Texans never even met the californy militia save for a single skirmish outside of Tuscon. They retreated after a couple months of fighting with the federal regulars who had been out their in frontier garrisons all along."
Case in point. Another comprehension problem. I wrote "western states and territories militia." You interpreted it as meaning "California militia." You need to go back and review the forces used in the theater. You'll find that a number of militia, rather than just federal regulars, were involved in causing the Texans to skedaddle. Unless, of course, you are just making it up as another one of your lies.
Half truth. The FIRST Missouri convention was legally elected. The second was not and convened itself out of Lincoln's military while the president of the first convention was busy leading the legally convened state militia in an effort to protect the legally elected legislature from attacks by a renegade transvestite yankee general.
The only interpretation error is on your end, capitan. I used the common universally accepted definition of a military "capture." You respond with a hideously nuanced quasi-definition that derives more from your need to save face than from any dictionary or etymology. You're starting to sound like John Kerry.
I wrote "western states and territories militia."
Fine! You're still wrong as the primary force encountered on that expedition was the federal regulars stationed out there!
What are you babbling about? Your post (#117) is the 1st to bring up slavery. This thread has nothing to do with slavery. You must be one of those poorly educated yankees who thinks all Southerners are pro-slavery and there was never a slave owner north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Do some research before diving into these threads. That fluff your liberal teachers stuffed in your head is quite unappealing.
You could have asked me days ago. I voted early on Thursday, October 28th. I voted for Bush/Cheney.
I voted against Lincoln.
As everything you post is false, I take it you voted for Kerry/Edwards.
You are in California. Massachusetts, West.
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.