Posted on 11/03/2004 8:24:39 AM PST by Always Right
ping
Why should anyone be embarassed about your non-existant mythical third party? Or anyone but you, it's lone voter, that is.
That's a nice little story, but silver production in Nevada began in 1859 well before the war and Nevada's territorial government was organized as a procedural matter in the "secession winter" session of congress, also before the war. Nevada's state archivist Guy Rocha calls the claim that Nevada was admitted to finance the war "a wonderful tale, but nothing could be farther from the truth" given that the mining had been underway for several years. The real reason for its admittance, which came in late October 1864 (i.e. onyl a few months before the end of the war) was the fact that Lincoln wanted its electoral votes in his 1864 campaign and needed to bolster the moderate ranks in the Republican Congress, which was trending radical.
Confederate tripe.
The constitution is quite clear that no state may be split without the sanction of its legislature. Unless you can show me where the Virginia legislature gave that sanction, the split was illegal. It happened to be sure. But it was still illegal.
Reconstructed Virginia lost all of the court cases it made to recover West Virginia.
Incorrect. If memory serves me well, they sued to recover some of the counties that had been arbitrarily claimed by Wheeling and succeeded in doing so. They were content to let Wheeling go however due to years of differences.
The loyal citizens of western Virginia organized a Unionist government in the absense of any constitutional government within the boundaries of the state.
Bullsh*t. They set up a rump government in Wheeling, purported themselves to rule over about 30 counties to their south that wanted nothing to do with them, and voted for separate statehood with a Saddam Hussein-style "election."
The Cherokees, in particular, wised up by 1863 and pretty much repudiated any agreements they had with the south.
Last time I checked, Chief Stand Watie and the Cherokees he led were among the very last confederate troops to surrender in 1865.
So...you're a Democrat?
But the Party of Lincoln went back to the White House.
All I asked for was that the state fall clearly on the union side. Sure, this excludes states where loyalties were strongly divided no matter how much the Lincoln government pretended to legislate over them. But that's because the fact of that division itself means that they were not clear-cut unionist states! You can pretend that your side in Missouri was the better government than the elected confederate one but that will never change the fact that Missouri was a divided state.
When it comes to clear cut union states, there are only four that voted for Bush. What's so difficult to understand about that, capitan?
That's odd. I saw a Democrat on my ballot, a Republican on my ballot, and a Libertarian on my ballot. All three parties were identified by those names. There wasn't anything called the "Party of Lincoln" though.
Notice that there are three types of states on the map:
The seceded states (both before and after sumter)
The border states
The union states
Out of all the union states, there are only four that voted for Bush: Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas.
Do you comprehend now or are you going to respond with more word games and obfuscation?
And they're forever speaking at Lincoln Day celebrations, and at the Lincoln Memorial. Like it or not, the GOP goes out of it's way to tie itself with Abraham Lincoln.
In closing, I want to leave you with this quote from Mrs. Bush at the RNC.
"No American President ever wants to go to war. Abraham Lincoln didn't want to go to war, but he knew saving the union required it. Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to go to war - but he knew defeating tyranny demanded it. And my husband didn't want to go to war, but he knew the safety and security of America and the world depended on it."
She knows the truth about Abraham Lincoln. I suppose y'all are going to make it a point to take care of that, what with all y'all in charge of the Republican Party 'n all.
Bush's raw margin in Texas and Georgia (2.24 million votes) was larger than Kerry's margin in New York and California (2.20 million).
Resistance was futile.
For once Iowa gets to be red, and they blow it on the map???
Man... dissapointment again. At least this time we ended up in the (R) column.
Watch it there, bub. Iowa has largely the same problem that Ohio (and Kentucky, for that matter) has. The state political machines are largely run by organized labor, and goes Dem in spite of being social conservatives.
It's unfortunate, but it's changing as the Dems move away from middle-America's values to embrace the militant homosexuals and the fringe whackos. In 2000, we were close. In 2004, Bush won. Things are looking brighter all the time.
It just looks like the South rose again. If you look at the map with counties you'll see that it's Urban against Rural/Suburban.
It was nice of the South to Vote for the President,though. : D
As an unfortunate resident of a "Blue" state, I am so happy we have the Southern states to thank for our momentous victory but your analogy is absolutely assinine! It is ignorant and hurtful and reflects badly on your fellow conservatives who abhor the implication that the freeing of an enslaved people was not morally justified.
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."
Clearly, the intent of the poster was to draw an association between the "red" states of the old South and the other "red" states of the of the West, Rockies, and Plains. This provides the context of my statements, and is the point you have completely missed. All of the territory occupied by the "lower 48" was within the jurisdiction of the United States in 1861. (We can ignore Alaska and Hawaii for the purpose of this discussion.) The CSA (aka "South," as in the "the south lost") was comprised of the 11 so-called seceded states. You may want to also claim Kentucky, Missouri, and the territory now occupied by Arizona and New Mexico, but the fact of the matter is the confederacy never maintained actual control of these areas.
Neither was the "Union" confined to the states you show in your graphic. It included the Pacific Coast states and territories, as well as the area in between. All Union, all garrisoned by Union and loyal militia troops during the War, and all contributors to the Union cause.
You attempt to make a narrow point about the relationship of the old south and the Bush victory, and fail to consider the importance of the other "red" state areas which were organized later into full-fledged states.
What is so hard for you to comprehend that the Union was comprised of states and territories?
The parties were far different then than they are now. Any comparison to today's party ideology is really difficult to equate.
Insofar as it is used as a title, yes. Indeed I do object. If you want to state that the GOP was the party - small p - to which Abraham Lincoln belonged that is fine. That is what Racicot did. But as far as this goofy "Party of Lincoln" concept goes, I prefer not to be involved in your fringe third party movements so I'll leave that one to you.
From her quote, which mentions FDR as well, I take it that you also think Mrs. Bush is a big government new dealer?
Play this song for your sad Democrat friends - it will cheer them up - NOT!
http://jhanch.web2010.com/whitehouse.ram
posted by reliapundit at 3:38 PM 0 comments
... which is why it is idiotic to say things like "It's Official - The South Won the Civil War".
Is that what you read into it? Cause I saw a simple post that observed how Bush's reelection vote was anchored in the old CSA states. The "all the states colored in" comment was obviously a reference to the fact that Bush has won Iowa, though the MSM has not updated their maps to reflect it. That you would read something different into that is indicative of a troubled mind that sees any simple mention of the civil war or the old confederacy in any context and, as if by gut reaction, allows his vision to be clouded by prejudices and hatred against the south.
All of the territory occupied by the "lower 48" was within the jurisdiction of the United States in 1861.
Indeed it was, but approximately half of it was unpopulated back then and cannot rightly be said to have favored either side during the war (unless you are planning on telling us of another Battle of Fort Davis where the cacti and buffalo participated in the conflict).
The CSA (aka "South," as in the "the south lost") was comprised of the 11 so-called seceded states.
12 plus a rump government from a thirteenth, Kentucky. Whether you wish to recognize secession or not is of no consequence to me as your position on the issue is not derived from reason and is therefore undeserving of further discussion. but the fact of the matter is the confederacy never maintained actual control of these areas.
Let's apply your "logic" further...Lincoln claimed Texas for all four years in office yet the fact of the matter is that Lincoln never maintained actual control over Texas - it seceded before he took the oath and didn't lay down its arms until after he was dead.
All Union, all garrisoned by Union and loyal militia troops during the War, and all contributors to the Union cause.
And exactly what significant actions did they do for the yankees? Send a couple sacks of potatos and tumbleweeds over to the east? Sacrifice one of their senators to the waters of the potomac and a bunch of confederate guns?
What is so hard for you to comprehend that most of those territories were barren and unpopulated in 1861 and that those states on the west coast from 1861 all went to Kerry?
Well, I think that what he was inferring was that the south now has become the predominant political force in the US, which is quite the opposite 140 years ago. The overlay doesn't exactly match, but it is striking. Several years ago, they were talking about the "soccer moms" yet this time they talk about the "NASCAR dads" .... how prophetic!
No...I'm a Republican, which is NOT the party of Abe the Tyrant.
No..the President is a TEXAN, hence a Southerner. A TEXAN is in the White House.
Hey brother.
When you look at the map I think the best we can say is that today The South is more than a geographical located state.
It is a state of mind.
When I look at that map I see a lot of good like minded brothers and sisters all over the country.
Regards. MRN
Sparsely populated, yes. "Barren and unpopulated," no.
By way of example, Florida in 1860 had a free population of fewer than 80,000.
Colorado Territory - 34,300
Nebraska Territory - 28,800 (statehood in 1867)
New Mexico Territory - 95,500 (comprising New Mexico and Arizona, separate Arizona Territory created by Congress in 1863)
Utah Territory - 40,000 (parts of Colorado and Wyoming)
Dakota Territory - 4,800 (comprising N. and S. Dakota, parts of Wyoming and Montana)
Nevada Territory - 6,900 (from Utah territory in 1861 during silver rush - statehood in 1864)
Washington Territory - 11,500 (included Idaho and parts of Wyoming)
You can see that your "unpopulated" statement is bunk.
I never made mention of a "Battle of Fort Davis." That is your concoction and misrepresentation. You need not spread your lies here.
"12 plus a rump government from a thirteenth, Kentucky."
Neither the Missouri nor Kentucky lost their representation in the US Congress. The actions of renegade legislatures or insurrectionist conventions had no effect on the continuation of those states' loyalty to the Union. Only 11 southern states needed to be reconstructed.
"And exactly what significant actions did they do for the yankees? Send a couple sacks of potatos and tumbleweeds over to the east?"
Your lack of knowledge of the history of the American west is appalling. 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. In Nevada these included the Virginia City, Humboldt, and Esmerelda Districts. In Colorado these included the Clear Creek and Central City Districts. The Idaho and Montana areas had similar rushes in 1861-1864. All of these areas produced a significant amount of revenue for the United States. Nevada alone was producing in excess of $24 million per year.
And every loyal State and Territory in the West provided an allotment of militia, many of whom freed up Federal regulars to return east. Some of those militia units participated in the few western actions, and others did go east and participate in the actions there.
As aggrevating as some of the results seem, it only takes a relatively samll movement to reverse the results. For instance, in California 11 out of 20 voters went for sKerry. 9 out of 20 went for Bush. What issue might bring 1 in 20 voters back from the "dark side"?
You show me that there was a functioning constitutional government in Virgina in 1863, outside of the western counties! Insurrectionists didn't derive any benefits from the Constitution they spat upon. LOL
The mountaineers organized a state government where none existed.
I'm in a decidedly Republican "red" part of California.
I am sure my votes would upset your friend nolu coward. I wonder how he voted? Hmmmm. Have you ever seen him post a positive comment about George Bush?
A couple thousand people in a few tiny outposts scattered across the land equivalent of over 800,000 square miles is unpopulated by any reasonable definition. Even assuming your unsourced population figures are accurate (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), the population density alone is virtually negligable so as to render a description of "unpopulated" accurate. 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.
Easy. Just go down to the capitol building in Richmond and you'll find an uninterupted house and senate journal throughout those years.
Nice try, but they were not operating under the US Constitution of 1787. They were an insurrectionist legislature and nothing did during that time was recognized as legal. In the eyes of the law, they did not even exist.
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.
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.