Silly American colonial patriots, celebrating Independence Day on the anniversary day that the Declaration was adopted.
Commemorations usually occur on the anniversary date of whatever is being commemorated. I guess for people whose major concern, though, is how to conquer and exploit people (which is what the war made Unionists), commemorations, and when they occur, aren't always that important...
The South didn't start the war. The federals started it by provoking the firing on the fort.
The US celebrates independence on that day because the colonial patriots did.
The South fought because they were invaded by a barbaric army, Rob.
Interesting that you automatically association "exploit" and slavery and completely ignore the exploitation of government, which continues to this day. That is your PC indoctrination at work.
They didn't demand that federals give up property. They offered to pay for all federal forts and other property. Lincoln wouldn't take it; but that's not the South's fault. The feds provoked the firing on Sumter by refusing to leave. That was actually what started the war -- federal provocation.
No, they fought because an army was invading. There would have been no need to fight to protect slavery or anything else if no army threatened them....
I've made no such demonstration, Rob. Don't confuse your perceptions with my intentions.
Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary." (http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.)
It's not my argument, Rob. It is what happened. Get it? I AM TELLING YOU WHAT HAPPENED. You are letting your animosity for me make you look real foolish. Whether or not they were considered a nation (and you didn't originally say nation, you said "the South") the fact that they offered to pay for federal property they took DEMOLISHES YOUR ARGUMENT that the South DEMANDED THAT THE FEDS GIVE UP THER PROPERTY.
You said, "Also, because someone doesn't accept a payment for something, say a car, that means they are provoking a fight?" Depends on the situation.
"Oh so now 'Colonial Patriots' is a common term...Google disagrees" -- You're making "Colonial Patriots" into a title. The way I used it, "patriots" is the title and "colonial" is an adjective. To quote someone who commented on a post in this blog: "This argument of semantics game you have is ridiculous. It does nothing to further the conversation."
========
From a Google search:
"Patriots (also known as Rebels, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men or American Whigs) were the COLONISTS of the British Thirteen United Colonies...." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_%28American_Revolution%29
Patriots: the American COLONISTS who wanted to break away from England and form a new country. -- http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ss5/b/revleadl.cfm
However, for many RESIDENTS of the COLONIES, the decision between being a PATRIOT or a loyalist was not at all obvious or easy. -- http://jarodkearney.com/id19.html
Crispus Attucks: Black Leader of COLONIAL PATRIOTS-- http://books.google.com/books/about/Crispus_Attucks.html?id=7D0cTzYmCDUC
Portraits of COLONIAL PATRIOTS-- http://www.archives.gov/research/military/american-revolution/pictures/#portrait
Other names for PATRIOTS included Sons of Liberty, Rebels, Whigs, and COLONIALS -- http://www.ducksters.com/history/american_revolution/patriots_and_loyalists.php
There is no better way to honor our New Mexico COLONIAL PATRIOT ancestors... -- http://home.comcast.net/~virginia.sanchez/patriotfaq.htm
the First Continental Congress was called to order on September 5th, 1774. 55 COLONIAL representatives, including famous PATRIOTS like John Adams, Samuel Adams, George Washington, and Patrick Henry, from twelve colonies met in Philadelphia, -- http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/continental-congress
========
No, Rob, I don't demonstrate that my defense of heritage is my current political projections onto the past/ I think what you really meant was that my defense of heritage is my current political beliefs or positions projected upon the past -- which is not true. Certainly past and present are connected and related, but acknowleding that isn't a projections. You floggers do the same "projecting," you know.
"... I'm glad you know how to copy and paste..." More of the flogger's insatiable need to denigrate the intelligence of others.
"...Major Anderson already reported that lack of supplies would force him to capitulate..." He was lying. From testimony of Col Baldwin, re: his visit with Lincoln just before the shelling of Sumter:
========
He [Lincoln] said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right."
=========
No, Davis was just defending the South. He was responding to the fatal error of Lincoln and the union in refusing to take payment for federal property leave the South, where it no longer belonged.
Watch folks. When Rob inserts weasel words "actually" and "in reality," etc., in sentences, he's getting ready to put forth his opinion as fact.
If you can do it honestly, ask people to define "colonial patriot" for you.
Both my arguments, re: Sumter, are valid, Rob.
Anderson's moving his men in to Sumter was an act of aggression. His sending telegrams to D.C. threatening Charleston (which he knew authorities in Charleston would read) was an act of aggression. Any attempt -- even the threat -- of resupplying Sumter was an act of aggression. These weren't fatal errors. They were purposeful acts of aggression.
What's really funny, Rob, is when you scrape the bottom of the barrel for some inconsequential thing to use as an insult to sling at someone in a debate... and you get called on it ... and you back down. That's what's funny....
The very fact that the federals -- particularly the military -- didn't leave the territory of seceded states was an act of aggression.
Rob your comment "I see you've come out from behind your secluded digital world." has me wondering what color the sky is in your "cyber bully wannabe" cybersphere, Rob I posted the "explanation of how Southern leaders situated the blame of the first shots" because they were there ! I tend to do that, you know know-go with statements from people who were actually involved with the war !
Rob, you floggers intend to be insulting with virtually everything you post. I made this blog entry about Confederate History and Heritage Month, and Corey promptly makes a post to insult the South.
I am this close to deleting everything both of you have posted here. The only reason you make comments is to show scorn for what Confederate and Southern heritage people hold in great respect. You're entitled to your ugly scorn, but you aren't entitled to express it here.
I posted a question at flogger blogs asking why they are interested in the Virginia Flaggers; why even post about on their blogs. Corey said, "I is my belief that the flaggers and you have a poor understanding of the history of the war and I am interested in how the war is taught to the public…and the public is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to talking to the flaggers. Therefore, I have posted my opinions on my blog."
Bullcrap. Total and utter bullcrap. Corey isn't interested in the flaggers because he's concerned about how the public is taught history -- he is interested in throwing crap and smearing slime on Confederate heritage and people who honor it. So are you. So are all the floggers.
I have just about reached my limit. The hatred you all exhibit is about to earn you permanent expulsion from my comments section. Capisce?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't think that, Corey. Do you? If so, why?
ReplyDeleteOh, the South didn't start the war.
Silly American colonial patriots, celebrating Independence Day on the anniversary day that the Declaration was adopted.
Commemorations usually occur on the anniversary date of whatever is being commemorated. I guess for people whose major concern, though, is how to conquer and exploit people (which is what the war made Unionists), commemorations, and when they occur, aren't always that important...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe South didn't start the war. The federals started it by provoking the firing on the fort.
ReplyDeleteThe US celebrates independence on that day because the colonial patriots did.
The South fought because they were invaded by a barbaric army, Rob.
Interesting that you automatically association "exploit" and slavery and completely ignore the exploitation of government, which continues to this day. That is your PC indoctrination at work.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThey didn't demand that federals give up property. They offered to pay for all federal forts and other property. Lincoln wouldn't take it; but that's not the South's fault. The feds provoked the firing on Sumter by refusing to leave. That was actually what started the war -- federal provocation.
ReplyDeleteNo, they fought because an army was invading. There would have been no need to fight to protect slavery or anything else if no army threatened them....
I've made no such demonstration, Rob. Don't confuse your perceptions with my intentions.
"Colonial patriots" -- it's a common designation. What would you like me to think about?
ReplyDeleteAlexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."
ReplyDelete(http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt's not my argument, Rob. It is what happened. Get it? I AM TELLING YOU WHAT HAPPENED. You are letting your animosity for me make you look real foolish. Whether or not they were considered a nation (and you didn't originally say nation, you said "the South") the fact that they offered to pay for federal property they took DEMOLISHES YOUR ARGUMENT that the South DEMANDED THAT THE FEDS GIVE UP THER PROPERTY.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Also, because someone doesn't accept a payment for something, say a car, that means they are provoking a fight?" Depends on the situation.
"Oh so now 'Colonial Patriots' is a common term...Google disagrees" -- You're making "Colonial Patriots" into a title. The way I used it, "patriots" is the title and "colonial" is an adjective. To quote someone who commented on a post in this blog: "This argument of semantics game you have is ridiculous. It does nothing to further the conversation."
========
From a Google search:
"Patriots (also known as Rebels, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men or American Whigs) were the COLONISTS of the British Thirteen United Colonies...." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_%28American_Revolution%29
Patriots: the American COLONISTS who wanted to break away from England and form a new country. -- http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ss5/b/revleadl.cfm
COLONIAL PATRIOT-- warrensburg.k12.mo.us/iadventure/revolution/story3b.htm
However, for many RESIDENTS of the COLONIES, the decision between being a PATRIOT or a loyalist was not at all obvious or easy. -- http://jarodkearney.com/id19.html
Crispus Attucks: Black Leader of COLONIAL PATRIOTS-- http://books.google.com/books/about/Crispus_Attucks.html?id=7D0cTzYmCDUC
COLONIAL PATRIOT Costumes -- http://www.brandsonsale.com/colonial-patriot-costumes.html
Portraits of COLONIAL PATRIOTS-- http://www.archives.gov/research/military/american-revolution/pictures/#portrait
Other names for PATRIOTS included Sons of Liberty, Rebels, Whigs, and COLONIALS -- http://www.ducksters.com/history/american_revolution/patriots_and_loyalists.php
There is no better way to honor our New Mexico COLONIAL PATRIOT ancestors... -- http://home.comcast.net/~virginia.sanchez/patriotfaq.htm
the First Continental Congress was called to order on September 5th, 1774. 55 COLONIAL representatives, including famous PATRIOTS like John Adams, Samuel Adams, George Washington, and Patrick Henry, from twelve colonies met in Philadelphia, -- http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/continental-congress
========
No, Rob, I don't demonstrate that my defense of heritage is my current political projections onto the past/ I think what you really meant was that my defense of heritage is my current political beliefs or positions projected upon the past -- which is not true. Certainly past and present are connected and related, but acknowleding that isn't a projections. You floggers do the same "projecting," you know.
"... I'm glad you know how to copy and paste..." More of the flogger's insatiable need to denigrate the intelligence of others.
"...Major Anderson already reported that lack of supplies would force him to capitulate..." He was lying. From testimony of Col Baldwin, re: his visit with Lincoln just before the shelling of Sumter:
========
He [Lincoln] said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right."
=========
No, Davis was just defending the South. He was responding to the fatal error of Lincoln and the union in refusing to take payment for federal property leave the South, where it no longer belonged.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWatch folks. When Rob inserts weasel words "actually" and "in reality," etc., in sentences, he's getting ready to put forth his opinion as fact.
ReplyDeleteIf you can do it honestly, ask people to define "colonial patriot" for you.
Both my arguments, re: Sumter, are valid, Rob.
Anderson's moving his men in to Sumter was an act of aggression. His sending telegrams to D.C. threatening Charleston (which he knew authorities in Charleston would read) was an act of aggression. Any attempt -- even the threat -- of resupplying Sumter was an act of aggression. These weren't fatal errors. They were purposeful acts of aggression.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat's really funny, Rob, is when you scrape the bottom of the barrel for some inconsequential thing to use as an insult to sling at someone in a debate... and you get called on it ... and you back down. That's what's funny....
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that the federals -- particularly the military -- didn't leave the territory of seceded states was an act of aggression.
Rob your comment
ReplyDelete"I see you've come out from behind your secluded digital world."
has me wondering what color the sky is in your "cyber bully wannabe" cybersphere,
Rob I posted the "explanation of how Southern leaders situated the blame of the first shots" because they were there !
I tend to do that, you know know-go with statements from people who were actually involved with the war !
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRob, you floggers intend to be insulting with virtually everything you post. I made this blog entry about Confederate History and Heritage Month, and Corey promptly makes a post to insult the South.
ReplyDeleteI am this close to deleting everything both of you have posted here. The only reason you make comments is to show scorn for what Confederate and Southern heritage people hold in great respect. You're entitled to your ugly scorn, but you aren't entitled to express it here.
I posted a question at flogger blogs asking why they are interested in the Virginia Flaggers; why even post about on their blogs. Corey said, "I is my belief that the flaggers and you have a poor understanding of the history of the war and I am interested in how the war is taught to the public…and the public is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to talking to the flaggers. Therefore, I have posted my opinions on my blog."
Bullcrap. Total and utter bullcrap. Corey isn't interested in the flaggers because he's concerned about how the public is taught history -- he is interested in throwing crap and smearing slime on Confederate heritage and people who honor it. So are you. So are all the floggers.
I have just about reached my limit. The hatred you all exhibit is about to earn you permanent expulsion from my comments section. Capisce?