Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert E. Lee Boy Scout Council, Richmond, VA, to be Renamed. More PC for the Boy Scouts...
WRVA Radio ^ | 5/13/03 | VMI70

Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 501-515 next last
To: HELLRAISER II
I disagree, Hitler had every intention of first ruling Europe and then the rest of the world.

You won't show that by anything he ever said.

Walt

151 posted on 05/13/2003 8:11:46 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Come on Walt, Sherman rode through the South and burnt home after home and killed anyone that remotely looked like a Reb. "Hey look at that guy he's got an gray hat." "Shoot
em he's a Reb."
152 posted on 05/13/2003 8:12:29 AM PDT by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: SCDogPapa
I think Walt is a school teacher, teaching the communist doctrine to peoples children instead of the truth.
153 posted on 05/13/2003 8:13:22 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: HELLRAISER II
Walt is all hot air, spouting horse pucky.
154 posted on 05/13/2003 8:14:31 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
They had no authority to take back land that they had freely given under the union in that way.
155 posted on 05/13/2003 8:14:40 AM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Why do you think that North Carolinian opposed negro equality?

They didn't believe in it. Opposing something or someone does not mean you hate it or them.

156 posted on 05/13/2003 8:15:05 AM PDT by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: SCDogPapa
Think God Walt has a free forum to speak here, in public someone would probably shut him up on the end of their fist.
157 posted on 05/13/2003 8:15:49 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
Thank God
158 posted on 05/13/2003 8:16:19 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
Seems a few people were hung, homes were burned, seems a general sherman had a scorched earth policy. Seems he was with the north, not the south, seems he was ruthless.

I do not think a single rebel citizen was hanged by federal authorities for disloyal activities.

Sherman was certainly for a hard war. The surrender terms he offered to General Johnston were so generous Johnston could hardly believe them.

Forty loyal Texans and 22 loyal North Carolinians were hanged simply for being loyal to the Union NOT ONE rebel was hanged for the same offense. In fact, the federal government in 1862 allowed a general amnesty for those arrested in 1861.

Walt

159 posted on 05/13/2003 8:16:33 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
Humm,,,,you may have something there.
160 posted on 05/13/2003 8:17:07 AM PDT by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
An absolute outrage. Robert E. Lee, while a loyal Virginian, who served the Confederacy with distinction was, for his time at least, no racist, and opposed chatel slavery.

Lee was clearly a supporter of slavery and class distinction. He couldn't even conceive of a beginning of the end of slavery. President Lincoln could.

But who gets attacked on FR?

Walt

161 posted on 05/13/2003 8:18:18 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Why did he burn down our farm when my family, all doctors, were treating his injured men?
162 posted on 05/13/2003 8:18:32 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
I KNOW you have something there! :)
163 posted on 05/13/2003 8:19:11 AM PDT by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Instead of WhiskeyPapa you should be VodkaPapa as you are most definately of soviet origin.
164 posted on 05/13/2003 8:20:22 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog
The heritage CLEARLY was and IS hatred.

There were slaves in the north also.

Blacks could vote in five northern states in 1860. The slave power was determined to get away from any combination that could elect a president publicly opposed to slavery.

Walt

165 posted on 05/13/2003 8:20:40 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: SCDogPapa
God Bless General Lee...what a statesman and Virginia Gentleman!
166 posted on 05/13/2003 8:21:00 AM PDT by Gopher Broke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Walt, doesn't slavery still exist in the north today? It would seem that cities like Baltimore, New York and many others in the north continue to hold down their black population.
167 posted on 05/13/2003 8:21:56 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
I'm talking about the South of the 1860s. The 1860 Republican ticket got ZERO votes in the solidly Democrat South of the day. And the blacks and the southern Unionists were not Democrats -- they voted GOP as soon as they could. The Confederate rebels were all Democrats.
168 posted on 05/13/2003 8:22:32 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
>>"barbarously the rebels acted in treating Union POW's and loyal Union men, who were murdered by the hundred and hanged by the dozen respectively, but it is still true."

I admittly don't know a whole lot about the Cival war. I have learned a lot more since I moved to Georgia. Maybe they should rename it to Sherman instead of Lee. It is amazing and a testiment to real leadership that America has become so united since the war ended. There is some animosity but more than most countries have been in the past and present. Somebody the other day told me that Ohioans may not be treated so badly in the South until I told them Grant, Sherman were both born in Ohio.
169 posted on 05/13/2003 8:23:44 AM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (FreeperPost /Sarcasm = on /mode = max)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"I can only assume that you are a victim of ..... propaganda, or you are willingly pushing an interpretation based on
skewed information."

And I assume the same of you sir!
Actually, I never said that the southern leaders werent bigoted, racist, or whatever one would choose to call them.
I would admit that by today standard most if not all were. My problem with the anti-south pro-north crowd is that they wont admit the same of their own leaders. MOST all white folks during the 1861-65 war(north and south) would be considered racist by todays standards.
170 posted on 05/13/2003 8:24:45 AM PDT by ConstitutionalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: HELLRAISER II
Come on Walt, Sherman rode through the South and burnt home after home and killed anyone that remotely looked like a Reb.

That is simply not true. Can you name one?

And as I indicated before, Sherman favored a soft peace:

"To his delight, and probably amazement, [rebel SecWar] Breckinridge saw that Sherman went far bevond Reagan's opening proposal, and instead offered virtually everything that he had been working For in his own reconstruction plan. Indeed, the terms were practically identical to what Campbell had proposed independently to Lincoln, suggesting the common origin of both proposals in the discussions Breckinridge and Campbell held back in February and March, and that the secretary of war had pressed them hard on Sherman now. When it came to recognizing the existing state governments, Sherman did at least have before him the example of what had been started in Virginia, not knowing that Lincoln and Campbell's plan there would soon collapse, but on most of the other concessions there was no precedent. Sherman even omitted any mention of emancipation. Perhaps Breckinridge in fact did seduce Sherman in some degree, and years later Sherman himself recalled how "those fellows hustled me so that day,"

Now the proposal of universal amnesty made no exceptions for Davis and his leaders, which the day before Sherman told ]ohnston was impossible. Undoubtedly Breckinridge and Johnston appealed to Sherman's vanity in their discussions by portraying him as potentially a great peacemaker, for within hours, when he wired his terms to Grant for approval, Sherman almost boasted that his cartel constituted an absohne submission. "The terms are all on our side," he wrote his wife that afternoon: "I can hardly realize it." His work that day would "produce Peace from the Potomac to the Rio Grande."

Once the three stood agreed on the terms, Sherman and Johnston signed it and Sherman called for copies to be made for their two governments. He then he spoke to the two Confederates of Lincoln's assassination. Johnston confided to Sherman his horror at the deed, fearing it would be blamed on the Confederates, and that Lincoln might have been their greatest ally in reconstruction." Stepping outside to their now mingled escorts, they found the news generally known, as Sherman introduced the two of them to his staff, and Breckinridge and Reagan discussed it with some of their followers. The postmaster said he hoped no connection between the murdered and their cause would be found, or it should go hard for them, while Breckinridge said Lincoln's death at this time and in this manner must precipitate great calamity for them. "Gentlemen," he told them, “the South has lost its best friend." At once he wrote a message to be taken by courier to Davis, announcing the assassination and what he called the "dastardly attempt" on Seward. As soon as he got back to Goldsboro and the telegraph, he would send a wire with more details Sherman also took Breckinridge aside privately and advised him that despite the provision for universal amnesty in their agreement, he doubted that the North would allow it to apply o the civil leaders. If they could, they had all better leave the country especially Davis. Noting that there was particular hostility toward Breckinridge since, as one-time vice president, he was the highest ranking living civilian to go over to the rebellion he advised the Kentuckian to be sure to get away. Breckinridge replied that he would give the Yankees no more trouble on his own account, and that he would attempt to get Davis and himself and the rest out of the country as soon as possible.

-"An Honorable Defeat" pp.166-67 by William C. Davis

Walt

171 posted on 05/13/2003 8:25:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Only1choice____Freedom
I bet the people that bitch the most about changing the names because they are offensive to them or their race wouldn't have a minutes trouble naming it Sherman or Lincoln even if that meant it was offensive to us Southernors. The truth of the matter is we Whites especially Southern Whites deserve scourn an punishment for what our Great, great, great Grandfathers did, at least in their own miniscule brains.
172 posted on 05/13/2003 8:27:14 AM PDT by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You are a liar, that scab killed several of my relatives. I am living proof you are a liar.
173 posted on 05/13/2003 8:27:24 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Why do you think that North Carolinian opposed negro equality?

You got a list of anybody in the North that wanted negro equality?

No. No you don't. Not even Lincoln.

Freedom maybe. Equality no.

174 posted on 05/13/2003 8:27:31 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ConstitutionalConservative
My problem with the anti-south pro-north crowd is that they wont admit the same of their own leaders.

Who ever says anything else? It's clear that most people of the day in 1860, north or south, had no use at all for blacks.

President Lincoln said as late as December 1862 that he strongly favored colonization.

Is anyone you know denying that?

Walt

175 posted on 05/13/2003 8:28:24 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
You are a liar, that scab killed several of my relatives. I am living proof you are a liar.

Arguably, some of your relatives survived.

Do you not have handy the names of these murdered relatives?

Walt

176 posted on 05/13/2003 8:30:04 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
My grandmother always refered to Sherman as the Anti-Christ for what he did to Atlanta. Talk about overkill.
177 posted on 05/13/2003 8:30:16 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Your statement alone proves that you lied, you are asking for my relatives names so you know it's possible. Check out the last name of Truluck, you will see that some of my relatives died at the hands of the butcher you are so proud of.
178 posted on 05/13/2003 8:32:24 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: VMI70
This is I fear another example of Political Correctness being used to conduct cultural clensing of those figures and events not in consonance with the Gramsian campaign to produce the appropriate construct that America is the land of the guilty redeemed only by a handful of feminists, civil rights activists, left wing politicians and crusaders for the gay culture.

It is not surprising that R. E. Lee should be at the head of the cultural hit list. A profoundly conservatve man embued with a belief that in the teachings of Christianity lay man's best hope for improvement in this world and salvation in the next Lee's very existence is a rebuke to the cultural marxists and those who truckle to them.

Lee was, first and foremost, a Christian. He understood human imperfections and made allowances for them, and he was genuinely concerned for the well-being of everyone - even the enemies against whom he fought. Lee also believed in rewarding and promoting those who did their work well. Knowing all of this is key to understanding his leadership.

There are two mysteries about Lee, that perhaps have become clouded with the passage of years. The first is the fact that he fought against U.S.A.. Lee opposed secession, but opposed even more the idea of forcing the Southern states to remain in the Union at gunpoint. He considered himself a Virginian first and foremost, and when push came to shove, he could not take up arms against the Old Dominion state, where so many of his relatives and friends lived. At no time was Lee enthusiastic about the war; even in fighting, he sought to bring the war quickly to an end. Lee refused to permit his men to steal from or to harm any civilians, even in Union territory, and even though some Union soldiers had no such qualms about Confederate civilians.

The second mystery is his relationship with slavery. Lee opposed slavery and saw it as a moral evil. Even so, he wanted to abolish slavery gradually, because he was concerned that the former slaves should have the means to provide for themselves before they were set free. In this, he opposed the abolition movement, but he was no defender of slavery. This is no where better stated than in a letter written in late 1856 in response to a message by President Pierce.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist!

While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Lee's character, though more complex than that embodied by the "marble man" image, remains about as fine as one can find in a public figure, then or now. The essense of Lee wsas his sacrifice to fulfill what he believed to be his duty. "One should never underestimate what the War Between the States cost Robert E. Lee . . . his home, his career, and virtually all his worldly goods," As Charles Crocker writes.

The South may have succumbed to overwhelming military force, but it triumphed in at least one sense. It produced perhaps the greatest symbol to come out of America's most disastrous conflict, someone who combined combat and moral excellence and who, once defeated, worked to heal the wounds of war. It is a record that deserves to be constantly recognized and commemorated
179 posted on 05/13/2003 8:32:58 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan; samuel_adams_us
The Confederate rebels were all Democrats.

Democrats of the day perhaps. But you are being disingenous with your implications that they equate with the Democrats of today.

180 posted on 05/13/2003 8:33:14 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
Sherman was ruthless, he burned anything and everything.
181 posted on 05/13/2003 8:33:15 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
"you will see that some of my relatives died at the hands of the butcher you are so proud of."

Are reparations in order perhaps?

182 posted on 05/13/2003 8:34:04 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
No thanks! We stand on our own feet, we don't need help from anyone, never have, never will.
183 posted on 05/13/2003 8:34:40 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
He was a horror. Truly blood-thirsty.
184 posted on 05/13/2003 8:35:12 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
You got a list of anybody in the North that wanted negro equality?

No. No you don't. Not even Lincoln.

President Lincoln wrote to the new governor of Louisiana in 1864, Michael Hahn, asking him to consider a provision in the new LA state constitution to allow blacks to vote. President Lincoln said this would help keep the jewel of liberty in the family of freedom.

A year later, President Lincoln came out publicly in support of the franchise for black Union soldiers. That is why Booth shot him.

It is also a simple fact of history that blacks -could- vote in five northern states in 1860.

Walt

185 posted on 05/13/2003 8:36:53 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
What is amazing and unique about the American experience of insurrection and rebellion is that the losers could get such favorable treatment for such inexcusable actions.

I guess that depends on what you consider inexcusable. The colluding of the industrial northern states to destroy the economy of the agrarian southern states was contemptible if not inexcusable. When the southern states found that their constitutional state sovereignty was being eroded and the balance of the congress was becoming stacked against them to their detriment, they decided the only course of action that left them the sovereignty and representation that they had fought in 1776 to obtain was to secede.

You call Lee a traitor because the south lost. If a few key battles in the 1770's had turned out slightly differently, you would be referring to George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc as traitors and Benedict Arnold as a hero.

If the south had won, the USA and CSA would probably be strong allies today (like the USA and Britain) and would also probably still be the "superpowers" that the USA is. Slavery would still have been abolished, though probably a generation later than it was, and racial relations would probably have improved more quickly than they did with southerners acting out of civility rather than having Washington dictate policies to them. (just my humble opinions)

186 posted on 05/13/2003 8:38:14 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Booth didn't shoot Lincoln for that reason, Booth was put up to shooting Lincoln by the wealthy. Booth rode across the Potomac that night and actually passed through the guards on the bridge as he had permission to do so from the army, how else could he have made it into Virginia when the capitol was under martial law.
187 posted on 05/13/2003 8:38:54 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
"kind" - The PC agenda has fostered more unkindness than almost anything I can think of. If the directors think that they are being kind by being PC, then they are mistaken.

"reverent" - I mean reverent, not in the religious sense, but in revering history and its prominent figures.

"brave" - It's not bravery when you know the legions of the PC army are with you as your allies. Those that stand against them are the brave ones, but they are apparently in the minority on this board.

"In short, personal attacks on the Council Directors based on a decision that has valid arguments on both sides is neither helpful to the discussion, nor Scout-like."

You are correct, and I wrote it in the heat of the moment, which was a mistake. However, the reasons given for the change are hollow, which is infuriating. One would expect better from one of the few remaining organizations that has a set of decent values.

What is definitely not Scout-like is not being honest about the motives behind the change and making the change sub rosa. If they were honest and forthright, it would make it much more palatable.
188 posted on 05/13/2003 8:39:17 AM PDT by VMI70 (...but two Wrights made an airplane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
That's great news. But, as you know, the dems want you to be perpetually offended and affected today by things that happened in the past.
189 posted on 05/13/2003 8:39:47 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
If the south had won, the USA and CSA would probably be strong allies today (like the USA and Britain) and would also probably still be the "superpowers" that the USA is.

If the CSA would have won, don't you think they would have tried to take over the North?

190 posted on 05/13/2003 8:40:03 AM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
This is true! The dems are the weak in favor of the weaker.
191 posted on 05/13/2003 8:41:00 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It is also a simple fact of history that blacks -could- vote in five northern states in 1860.

While I am not surpised, you missed my point.

I know a lot of racists who don't mind blacks having the right to vote as long as they stay on their side of the tracks. I grew up with people saying "they're just as good as anybody else." Those same people wouldn't let an African-American in their homes, unless it was as domestic help.

That attitude is prevalent in the North as much as it is in the South. Busing told us that much.

Like I said there were advocates for freedom and voting rights.

There were no advocates for next door neighbors.

THAT's my problem with yankees trying to portray all southernors as racists.

192 posted on 05/13/2003 8:42:53 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: VMI70
bttt
193 posted on 05/13/2003 8:43:44 AM PDT by octobersky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
Booth didn't shoot Lincoln for that reason...

Yes, he very clearly did.

"On April 14, 1865, after the fall of Richmond rendered moot his kidnap scheme, Booth set in motion his final plan--one of assassination. Booth may have made the decision to kill the President after hearing Lincoln deliver a speech urging Negro suffrage, according to Booth's former friend, Louis Weichmann. Weichmann spoke of his viewing of the the President's speech with Booth:

"I had never seen Mr. Lincoln up close and I knew he was a tall man, however nothing could have prepared me for the sight of him. A long shadow did he have. And his arms, when at his sides, touched near his knees. Very professionally he said that there would never be any suffrage based on differences in the way people look. Upon this, Booth turned to the two of us and said, “That means nigger citizenship. Now by God I’ll put him through!”

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/booth.html

Three days later, Booth shot Lincoln.

Walt

194 posted on 05/13/2003 8:44:03 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Booth was basically hired to get rid of Lincoln, how else would the Army have orders to let him pass across the potomac, did he pass go and collect $200.00?
195 posted on 05/13/2003 8:45:44 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The proper place for disputes between states to be settled under our system is in Congress, or in the courts. Secession is illegitimate.

It may be now but it wasn't then. A government derives its authority from the consent of the people it governs. If those people want to leave that government (and they comprise a large enough and unanimous area to do it) then they should be allowed to.

The civil war destroyed states rights.

196 posted on 05/13/2003 8:45:51 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
You call Lee a traitor because the south lost. If a few key battles in the 1770's had turned out slightly differently, you would be referring to George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc as traitors and Benedict Arnold as a hero.

GW and the rest -were- traitors. What else is new?

Walt

197 posted on 05/13/2003 8:46:01 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
"free men are not equal, equal me are not free"
198 posted on 05/13/2003 8:46:07 AM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
I found when I lived in Pennsylvania, that Yankees are much more racist than Southerners. I never heard the "n-word" in my family, but heard it daily while in PA, and by well-educated people.
199 posted on 05/13/2003 8:47:01 AM PDT by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
In the first quote he defends the union as developed by our founding fathers. In the second quote he defends the union as developed by our founding fathers. Where's the inconsistency?
200 posted on 05/13/2003 8:47:04 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 501-515 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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