Posted on 06/19/2007 8:12:22 AM PDT by BGHater
Before I read your post will I get another lecture on context and my inability to understand context? Will there be bolded words to point out my flagrant mistakes in not understanding the "context" of your post...
Here goes...Reading your post now.
First mistake to FTD. And your question was in relation to the question I was dealing with another poster that stated that most Southerners were fighting against a massive Union invasion.
No, my question had nothing to do with that. You just assumed it did. I was being a smart aleck when I asked the question "who did McDowell have with him in Virginia?" That's all. It was that simple. I was having a laugh at your expense. Then you get your back all up and started posting to me in a hectoring voice complete with bolds.
Let us go on, shall we.
Since my question was a smart aleck reply to your statement "Lincoln did not have an army" I was not trying to avoid your context at all.
And you asked that in relation to my comments to another poster on why most Southerners joined in the rebellion.
No, you just think I did. You thought I was going to launch some sneaky Rebel trap on you...
So the question was not whether a army was raised, but did it cause most of the Southern states to secede and the answer is no, most of the South had secede before the Army could be assembled.
I will repeat my question again. Who did McDowell have with him in Virginia? That question had nothing to do with all that you wrote before. Again, you just think it does. Because Sherlock, by typing the above you aren't revealing a secret that only you know.
What you asked was in relation to the other question.
No, you just assumed I did. And the adage is true. When you assume you make ass of u and me.
Well, it is clear you did not read the article I posted that stated that the American Army was small and scattered when the Southern States began to secede.
Oh...So Lincoln did have an army! Fancy that.
So, secession was not a reaction to any Union invasion threat.
Wasn't asking that. Just wanting to know who was with McDowell in Vigirnia.
It was an Army that was raised after the U.S. flag was fired upon.
And there it is ladies and gentlemen. McDowell had an army with him in Virginia. But notice the caveat. The agenda has been protected. North-good. South-bad. North-snow white clean hands. South-100% responsible for everything that went wrong.
I'm not reading your post from this point on because now you are preaching and lecturing and it gets boring and tedious. Who gives a flip. Not me.
One more comment since the bold word reached out and grapped me. I didn't ask a rhetorical question. Again, you just assumed I did. I asked a smart aleck question. If you could tell the difference (and you probably could if you didn't think that everyone on these threads were only here to protect an agenda) you would have laughed and said, an army.
I don’t disagree with you at all on that point, NS, but wether they believed it or not, it would have ended, out of practicality.
Yes, we have the right to speak out concerning Abortion, but this is an entirely different analogy.
Slavery was a SECTIONAL issue. It didn’t affect the economy of the North whatsoever.
This is why I cannot fathom how anyone could ever believe that the brilliant minds who created our Constitution would ever have allowed unilateral secession. It's a two way road. States are allowed to join and reap the benefits of membership in the body politic. In return their rights are respected and the rights of all the other states are respected as well. And should at some future time a state would desire to leave the Union then it has to be done with the approval of both sides of the issue. Because only then can all issues be resolved before the split and all possible contentions mitigated. The alternative can lead to nothing except acrimony and ill-will, as the Southern split in 1861 so clearly proved.
NOTHING contained in your post is illuminating to anyone on this forum. it simply makes you look SILLY, SELF-righteous, sanctimonious & DUMB.
why not toddle over to DU & spew your HATRED toward dixie & the southern people & your obvious BIGOTRY there??? you will NOT be missed by anyone on FR.
free dixie,sw
As I have stated many times before, the South WOULD have resolved the matters of secession peacefully, if they had been recognized by the Lincoln Government, etc. They were never given the chance. Instead the Commissioners were deliberately snubbed. (I would have told Lincoln to kiss my backside, too!)
free dixie,sw
trying to educate him is like trying to teach a hog to sing opera. (it annoys the pig, wastes yout time & causes you only frustration.)
instead, join me (& most of the other readers of these threads) in RIDICULING his "lack of brains" , his WILFUL ignorance of the FACTS of the WBTS period & his BIGOTRY.
free dixie,sw
What you've stated is you THINK the South would have resolved matters. The FACT is that the South did not and did not even attempt to settle anything before walking out of the Union. You want us to believe that once having gotten the only thing they cared about, diplomatic recognition, the South would all of a sudden have been filled with the desire to do the right thing and make things right. Why should we believe that?
free dixie,sw
ROTFLMAO!!! Come on, what's the real reason?
"the Billy Yanks fought well, bravely & honorably for the worst of all possible causes. their masters in the north, on the other hand, cared NOTHING for honor, truth or fidelity. the northern elites cared ONLY about MONEY & remaining in POWER. NOTHING was more important to them than those two base motives." (emphasis: MINE)
Jake was 100% correct.
free dixie,sw
Methinks that ol' Jake was as full of baloney as you are.
Had you actually asked questions I would have been glad to attempt to answer them.
Nicely done! You rocked the bonehead’s world - that was perfect.
"the Billy Yanks fought well, bravely & honorably for the worst of all possible causes. their masters in the north, on the other hand, cared NOTHING for honor, truth or fidelity. the northern elites cared ONLY about MONEY & remaining in POWER. NOTHING was more important to them than those two base motives."
But what he should have said was:
"the Johnny Rebs fought well, bravely & honorably for the worst of all possible causes. their masters in the south, on the other hand, cared NOTHING for honor, truth or fidelity. the southern elites cared ONLY about MONEY & remaining in POWER and their SLAVERY. NOTHING was more important to them than those three base motives."
It takes a lot of effort to deny that the dixie bigshots cared greatly about slavery, but there is also a widely held misconception that secessionists were noble souls that didn't care at all for money and power. In fact, they were so drunk with the lust for money and power that it overcame what little common sense that the slave system left them.
Hehe! :)
Then how about this one? Why would the existing states ever admit a new state if they knew that at some future point, for any reason that they wanted, that state could walk out of the Union and walk away from all responsibility for treaty obligations or debt, take whatever federal property that they wanted, threaten the economic well-being of the remaining states, and leave the remaining states with no recourse?
I think there's more of a consensus here concerning those days. :)
I don't know. There a a lot of actions throughout the history of the US that neither of us or logic can explain. Suppose you try to explain the actions of our congress on the Immigration Bill today, with all of the access, visibility, and scrutiny at our disposal, while I go ponder the considerations of the initial ratification convention and the admission of the subsequent 37 states.
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.