Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8189 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-21-2014 3:07 PM
86 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Golffly
Post Volume:
Total: 744,281 Year: 30,122/28,606 Month: 1,851/3,328 Week: 13/614 Day: 13/60 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13104
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 121 of 168 (588574)
10-26-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Re: thanks
Since A.E. is back, I'll respond to this:

And the simple fact that the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that left the union, shows that it was merely a political and strategic move to destablize the enemy.

Yes. And no.

It's a subtle point, but let's look into it.

As I pointed out a few posts back, Lincoln, in his role as President, could not have freed a single slave. That was a matter for Congress.

The legal justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was that the slaves in the Confederate States formed part of the Confederate war machine. Therefore Lincoln could proclaim them free in his role as Commander-in-Chief.

Now this excuse was tenuous enough as it is --- but he certainly could not have applied it to slaveholding states that had remained in the Union, such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, because they weren't the enemy.

So instead of saying: "The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that left the Union, as a political and strategic move to destabilize the enemy" it would be more accurate to say: "The Emancipation Proclamation could only free slaves in states that left the Union, and only because it was a political and strategic move to destabilize the enemy".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4731
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 122 of 168 (588578)
10-26-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Artemis Entreri
10-26-2010 3:11 PM


WOW
You actually create a long post with absolutely nothing to support your argument. Your rant consists of personal attacks and name calling, but where is the evidence to back up the assertions you made.

Come on lets see some evidence not just name calling and more assertions.

You have yet to address the OP.

1)Provide evidence for the spurious Lee quote, or admit you have no evidence it is a quote from Lee.
2)Provide evidence, that has not already been refuted,for this comment

but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

Now do you have anything or are you going to continue to lash out with your name calling and foul language? Most of us try to maintain a civil debate here, but if all you can do is resort to foul language then I will just ask the mods to shut down the thread.

In case you are unaware of how a forum like this works, I will spell it out for you.

1)You make an assertion.
2)Someone counters your assertion with evidence(it helps to have a source to show some support for the argument).
3) You support your assertion with evidence and a cogent argument.

You have never done step 3. Whenever evidence was presented against your assertions, you either ignored, resorted to name calling or made more assertions. Time to put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your original assertions, or quit posting to this thread.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-26-2010 3:11 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:26 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 123 of 168 (588639)
10-27-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 4:31 PM


Re: thanks
Dr Adequate writes:

Now this excuse was tenuous enough as it is --- but he certainly could not have applied it to slaveholding states that had remained in the Union, such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, because they weren't the enemy.

and probably would have become the enemy, if all slaves were included (well probably not in DE). I find the whole thing to be purely political. Lincoln had to wait till 1863 for a real victory to give this proclamation to begin with, had this been given in 1861 he would have looked more the fool, and possibly lost Maryland, placing Washington D.C. on the wrong side of the line.

Either way the emancipation proclamation was not really to end slavery, it was just rubbing in the win at Ghettysburg, and flip flopping on a campaign promise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 4:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 12:51 AM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 132 by jar, posted 10-27-2010 9:53 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 124 of 168 (588640)
10-27-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Theodoric
10-26-2010 4:52 PM


Re: WOW
1)You make an assertion.
2)Someone counters your assertion with evidence(it helps to have a source to show some support for the argument).
3) You support your assertion with evidence and a cogent argument.

You have never done step 3. Whenever evidence was presented against your assertions, you either ignored, resorted to name calling or made more assertions. Time to put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your original assertions, or quit posting to this thread.

I haven't got to it yet but all you have done is use quotes from subbie and Dr Adequate, so I guess you can't even follow your own advice.

my name calling is in response to name calling from others. you start the thread off with assertion that i would not defend my self and then every single post say that i do not, while only using ideas from Dr Adequate. Catholic Scientist was dead on about you.

_________________________________________

Is this thread about the Cause of the Civil War or how Robert E. Lee was not fighting for slavery? Everything you have copied and supported is about the cause of the civil war, and when I respond to that, you move to goal posts to say we are talking about something else (its not a clever tactic, its weak), so I will cover Lee and see where the goal posts get moved to next.

americancivilwar.com writes:

Politically, Robert E. Lee was a Whig. Ironically, he was attached strongly to the Union and to the Constitution. He entertained no special sympathy for slavery.

And being the son of a Revolutionary Calvalryman, and Marrying into George Washinton's Family, and living across the Potomac from D.C. He was an american military man at heart, a Patriot.

He did not want to fight a war against Americans, and against the people in his home state. So he resigned from duty and went to serve with the Virginians. He was not into politics and had no say on whether Virginia would stay or leave the Union. He knew what would happen and he wasn't going to be the cause of it, especially against Virginians.

quote:
When Virginia withdrew from the Union, Lee resigned his commission rather than assist in suppressing the insurrection. His resignation was two days following the offer of Chief of Command of U.S. forces under Scott. He then proceeded to Richmond to become Commander-in-Chief of the military and naval forces of Virginia. When these forces joined Confederate services, he was appointed Brig. Gen. in the Regular Confederate States. americancivilwar.com

Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?!
who would believe that? seriously?

i'll finish this tomorrow, and i am sure the goal posts will be elswhere by then.

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : ok i'll bite.

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : oops

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2010 4:52 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:09 AM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 134 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 2:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:41 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13104
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 125 of 168 (588645)
10-27-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:19 AM


Re: thanks
and probably would have become the enemy, if all slaves were included (well probably not in DE). I find the whole thing to be purely political. Lincoln had to wait till 1863 for a real victory to give this proclamation to begin with, had this been given in 1861 he would have looked more the fool, and possibly lost Maryland, placing Washington D.C. on the wrong side of the line.

If you are accusing Lincoln of being intelligent, this may well be the case.

Either way the emancipation proclamation was not really to end slavery, it was just rubbing in the win at Ghettysburg, and flip flopping on a campaign promise.

... which for some reason you do not quote.

And come on now ..."flip-flopping"? Nice rhetoric and all, but do you not think that the outbreak of a civil war between his campaign and the Emancipation Proclamation might have altered things somewhat?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:19 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 1:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 126 of 168 (588646)
10-27-2010 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2010 12:51 AM


Re: thanks
And come on now ..."flip-flopping"? Nice rhetoric and all, but do you not think that the outbreak of a civil war between his campaign and the Emancipation Proclamation might have altered things somewhat?

speaking of rhetoric, it really wasn't a civil war, it was a war against the power of the federal government, over the issue of self determination by some of the states.

I get what you are asking but you use the same tricky rhetoric yourself.

The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory. Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route.

1865, the year the constitution died.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 12:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:34 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:47 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13104
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 127 of 168 (588647)
10-27-2010 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:26 AM


Re: WOW
I haven't got to it yet but all you have done is use quotes from subbie and Dr Adequate, so I guess you can't even follow your own advice.

my name calling is in response to name calling from others. you start the thread off with assertion that i would not defend my self and then every single post say that i do not, while only using ideas from Dr Adequate.

But what you are saying about Theodoric is not remotely true, is it?

It's fairly easy to check out. See that thing at the top of the thread where it says Theodoric Posts Only? Well it's simple enough to click on that and read all his posts, it didn't take me long. And if you can't find it, you can just click on the link that I just supplied.

So it's fairly easy to find out that you're not telling the truth.

Is this thread about the Cause of the Civil War or how Robert E. Lee was not fighting for slavery?

Hint: look at the title of the thread.

... so I will cover Lee and see where the goal posts get moved to next.

ROTFL.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:26 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 8:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13104
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 128 of 168 (588648)
10-27-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 1:03 AM


Re: thanks
speaking of rhetoric, it really wasn't a civil war, it was a war against the power of the federal government, over the issue of self determination by some of the states.

I get what you are asking but you use the same tricky rhetoric yourself.

"Rhetoric"? It's just what people call it. They call it the Civil War.

And if you would bother to look at my posts, you will see that I support the right to secession and repeatedly refer to "the CSA". If calling it the "Civil War" is "tricky rhetoric", then I am trickily using rhetoric to undermine my own explicitly stated position.

But maybe I am not engaged in some intricate devious double-bluff of this nature. Maybe I just call it the Civil War because that's what it's called.

Sheesh.

The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory.

Again, I concede that Lincoln was quite bright ...

Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route.

... but perhaps not quite bright enough to handle a war peacefully.

That might even be beyond my powers.

1865, the year the constitution died.

Yeah, you've said that before. Maybe one day you'll tell us what you mean by it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 1:03 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5797
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 129 of 168 (588653)
10-27-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 4:04 PM


Goose v. Gander?
Dr. A writes:

Oh, sorry, I missed this when you asked it.

Not a problem. We were all just treading water waiting for Artermis to come back.

I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states. The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections. For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.

A state might be said to have an extra-legal right to revolt or rebel against the union, but in that case, we get to judge the state's moral position. I believe that the seceding states utterly fail that examination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 4:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 9:11 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 7:19 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 130 of 168 (588660)
10-27-2010 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2010 1:09 AM


Re: WOW
It's fairly easy to check out. See that thing at the top of the thread where it says Theodoric Posts Only? Well it's simple enough to click on that and read all his posts, it didn't take me long. And if you can't find it, you can just click on the link that I just supplied.

I got a little carried away, I think maybe 2 out of 21 posts he/she actually looked something up and posted his/her own thoughts. MOST of the time he/she is your echo.

Hint: look at the title of the thread.

he/she claims its all about a quote I used from the quote of the day thread.

Hint: read the OP

ROTFL.

my thoughts exactly

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:09 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2010 5:51 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 131 of 168 (588664)
10-27-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by NoNukes
10-27-2010 4:50 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.

1st I don't think VA is going anywhere, I know this was an example, but you live out here too, and I just don't see it happening. NOVA is too tied to DC.

I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states. The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections.

which rights granted are the important ones? the bill of rights are self-evidenent and unalienable, and not granted by law, but are natural; the constituion merely protects those rights from infringment from the federal government.

Do you not find anything alarming about the number of states today that are reaffirming the 10th amendment?

I think Montana had a valid reason in 2008 when it threatened secession over the possible ruling of DC vs. Heller. In the states' 1889 contract to join this union Montana stated that a gun ownership was an individual right, and the Union agreed, if in 2008 the fed was going to overturn that idea, then they were basically "in breach of contract" with Montana. Thankfully the SCOTUS made the correct interpretation, and now it is a moot point, but there are valid reasons for secession, which is my point.

What about Arizona's right to enforce immigration law, where the fed does not?

What if California voters decide to legalize Marijuana?

or Alaska voters deceide to drill there for more natural resources?

States are getting tired of this large overpowering federal government telling them what to do.

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 4:50 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 12:01 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 25132
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 132 of 168 (588670)
10-27-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:19 AM


Re: thanks
I find the whole thing to be purely political. Lincoln had to wait till 1863 for a real victory to give this proclamation to begin with, had this been given in 1861 he would have looked more the fool, and possibly lost Maryland, placing Washington D.C. on the wrong side of the line.

And as I pointed out back in Message 91 the reason Maryland did not secede was because Baltimore and Annapolis were occupied by Union troops at the very beginning of the war. The timing of the Emancipation Proclamation would have had no effect on what Maryland did.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:19 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5797
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 133 of 168 (588679)
10-27-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 9:11 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
Artemis Entreri writes:

1st I don't think VA is going anywhere, I know this was an example, but you live out here too, and I just don't see it happening. NOVA is too tied to DC.

The example was extreme and unrealistic, but it was for the limited purpose of trying to get Dr A. to add some flesh to his position. Northern Va really isn't all of VA.

quote:
which rights granted are the important ones? the bill of rights are self-evidenent and unalienable, and not granted by law, but are natural; the constituion merely protects those rights from infringment from the federal government.

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing particularly natural about the 1st Amendment. Further, most of the bill of rights protects us from the state government as well as the federal, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Clearly the 13, 14, and 15th amendments all protect citizens against state governments.

I'm not going into detail regarding your examples of aggrieved states, other than to say that you and I differ significantly on federalism. I don't find your examples the least bit compelling. My experience is that it is generally the state government that wants walk its jack boots into private places or all over individual rights. There are plenty of examples of the federal courts vindicating individual rights against states.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 9:11 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 4:35 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5797
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 134 of 168 (588696)
10-27-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:26 AM


Re: WOW
Artemis Entreri writes:


i'll finish this tomorrow, and i am sure the goal posts will be elswhere by then.

If you take another look at the opening post, you'll see that both the Lee quote, and the causes of the civil war at least with respect to the southern and border states are clearly on topic.

If you also take a look at your response, you'll see that you accepted the full scope proposed by Theodoric.

Edited by NoNukes, : Fix up tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:26 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4731
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 135 of 168 (588720)
10-27-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:26 AM


Re: WOW
First of all you are completely changing the argument. You claimed Lee made a quote. I have challenged you to support the quote. Do you have any evidence Lee made the quote? Either produce it or admit you have no evidence.

I readily agree that Lee was not a hard line slave owner. At best he was conflicted.

Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?!

Do you know why Lee freed the Custis slaves in 1862? Because it was in the terms of his father-in-laws will.
Now here's the tricky part. Evidence.

quote:
then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.

Will of George Washington Parke Custis

In a letter to his wife Lee states the slavery is a necessary evil to turn blacks into good Christians and condemns abolitionists for wanting to interfere in the good work of slavery.
Lee's Letter to his wife

More about Lee's attitude toward slavery.

quote:
My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to "lay it on well," an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

Source

Even more

Lee's reasons for fighting were very complex. His reasons are not the subject of this thread. The subject is did he say what you assert. So far you have provided no evidence.

I haven't got to it yet but all you have done is use quotes from subbie and Dr Adequate,

How about defending your original assertions? I can more than stand my own on any historical debate.

Catholic Scientist was dead on about you.

What you and CS think about me has no impact on me whatsoever. How about defending your assertions?

Everything you have copied and supported is about the cause of the civil war, and when I respond to that, you move to goal posts to say we are talking about something else (its not a clever tactic, its weak), so I will cover Lee and see where the goal posts get moved to next.

Whining gets you no where. Show how the goalposts have been moved. The premise of the OP is very simple. In this whole post you have shown no evidence that Lee made the quote you attributed to him.

I will probably be accused of copying Dr A if we make any of the same points. Earlier today when I tried to post the site went down. So if you want to claim these are not my points then too bad.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:26 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014