
150 Years Ago Today
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
150 Years Ago Today
Southern mouths wrote a check their lazy asses couldn't cash. Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.


Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
- War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Nice.


- Atomic Punk
- antagonist
- Posts: 6636
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
- Location: El Segundo, CA
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
KC Scott wrote:In all fairness they played a meatgrinder schedule that year

or the PVC version?

BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
We're still pissed at the Dutch for selling them to us in the first place.mvscal wrote:Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.
JPGettysburg wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:57 pm In prison, full moon nights have a kind of brutal sodomy that can't fully be described with mere words.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
It's one of my favorite pictures, Grant at City Point by Mathew Brady. City Point was his HQ during the siege of Petersburg late 1864-April 1865.War Wagon wrote:Nice.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
was that when he went to Joe McGrath's tent and Joe was in front of the mirror in a zebra skin jockstrap, dancing?
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Rack!mvscal wrote:Southern mouths wrote a check their lazy asses couldn't cash. Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Me too.mvscal wrote:Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking
Hope the crime, infant mortality, unemployment, abortion, welfare, education, poverty, and quality-of-life rates are worth yours.
Last edited by Truman on Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Journalism Scholar Emeritus Screw_Marcus wrote:Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not?
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Nice non sequitur, you assfucked, Bible thumping dipshit.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Bible thumping? Link?mvscal wrote:Nice non sequitur, you assfucked, Bible thumping dipshit.
So is your causation for the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.
Journalism Scholar Emeritus Screw_Marcus wrote:Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not?
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
The war was about slavery. Nothing else. A quick perusal of the articles of secession from the various Southern states make that abundantly clear and in specific detail. If that doesn't suffice then you are referred to decades of sectional tensions caused by the issue. You can follow them from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852 and it's surrounding controversy to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the resulting Border War in Kansas to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 to the secession of Southern states on the splintered instant of the election of a President from an openly Abolitionist political party.Truman wrote:So is your causation of the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.
Or you can just shove your fucking head up your ass and keep telling yourself it had nothing to do with slavery. The Lost Cause woo-woo horseshit peddled by the SCV to ignorant fuckheads like you doesn't hold water. Never did and never will.
Oh and don't forget that the faggot whose flag you're flying shit himself to death after Grant stomped a mudhole in his chest at Vicksburg.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
OUR war wasn't about slavery.mvscal wrote:The war was about slavery. Nothing else. A quick perusal of the articles of secession from the various Southern states make that abundantly clear and in specific detail. If that doesn't suffice then you are referred to decades of sectional tensions caused by the issue. You can follow them from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852 and it's surrounding controversy to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the resulting Border War in Kansas to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 to the secession of Southern states on the splintered instant of the election of a President from an openly Abolitionist political party.Truman wrote:So is your causation of the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.
Or you can just shove your fucking head up your ass and keep telling yourself it had nothing to do with slavery. The Lost Cause woo-woo horseshit peddled by the SCV to ignorant fuckheads like you doesn't hold water. Never did and never will.
Pity The Missouri General Assembly missed your talking points, you stupid, revisionist, flaming pile of fuck.
General Order No. 11 out front shoulda told you…
Missouri Ordinance of Secession
Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and
Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.
This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
Approved, October 31, 1861.
Funny how they left out all the slavery parts…
Next, you're going to tell us what the General Assembly REALLY meant. Oh wait... They never seceded.
0-2, Loser. Even money sez your next post rings up a called third. BTW, still waiting on that that “thumper” link you were supposed to dig up...
WHICH flag, Loser? I’m flying two these days. The Missouri Confederate flag carried by the state's regiments that you ignorantly confused with thumpery? BTW, Price fought in Mississippi, but not Vicksburg, and died in St. Louis after the war. Or is it Quantrill’s Black Flag? Most people shot in the chest in Kentucky don’t shit themselves to death in Vicksburg. Unless they survive, and live out their days in Vancouver.Oh and don't forget that the faggot whose flag you're flying shit himself to death after Grant stomped a mudhole in his chest at Vicksburg.
We're done here. You really suck at this mvscal.
Journalism Scholar Emeritus Screw_Marcus wrote:Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not?
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Real barn burner, that one.Casualties and losses
2 killed after the surrender, 9 wounded
1 horse killed, 4 men wounded
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Funny how you left out the parts about them being in open rebellion at the time of this issue. Oh and they didn't forget to mention slavery either:Truman wrote:Funny how they left out all the slavery parts…
That's right, idiot. Slavery. It wasn't unconstitutional for the President to request troops from states to suppress an armed insurrection nor is it illegal or unconstitutional for Federal forces to enter a state. All this states' rights hemming and hawing was about slavery and nothing more. The "right" to own niggger slaves was the only thing threatened by the election of a Republican president. EOS.Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers,
That is correct. The Neosho pow wow was not a representative assembly and had no force of law. They were fugitive criminals not the state government duly assembled.Oh wait... They never seceded.
The Missouri Confederate flag carried by the state's regiments that you ignorantly confused with thumpery?
You don't even know whose flag you're flying. That's par for the course. It's the battle flag of Bowen's brigade and then his division, Army of the Mississippi, dumbfuck. Price didn't pick it up until his raid into Missouri in 1864 which was a disasterous failure...much like your post. Bowen died in a puddle of shit after the surrender of Vicksburg. He didn't live happily ever after in Vancouver or anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Bowen
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
RACK all Sgt. Pepper's resets.
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
That's no way to treat individuals who are raising your state's collective IQ.Papa Willie wrote:Only difference now is that you god damned yankees keep moving down here. Go home, motherfuckers! :D
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Those were the good 'ole days. When Ohio teams had a winning record against the South. :doh:KC Scott wrote:In all fairness they played a meatgrinder schedule that year
“My dentist, that’s another beauty, my dentist, you kiddin’ me. It cost me five thousand dollars to have all new teeth put in. Now he tells me I need braces!” —Rodney Dangerfield
-
- 2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
- Posts: 29350
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
- Location: Lookin for tards
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
mv's assesment of the reason's for secession is about as well written and concise a demolition of an opposing point of view as we are ever likely to read on this board. Rack it.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
- Antonio Brown
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
- Antonio Brown
- Terry in Crapchester
- 2012 March Madness Champ
- Posts: 8995
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Back in the 'burbs
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
As I've said before, on those extremely rare occasions that mvscal and I happen to agree on anything even remotely political in nature, and you happen to disagree, feel free to assume that we are right and you are wrong.mvscal wrote:The war was about slavery. Nothing else. A quick perusal of the articles of secession from the various Southern states make that abundantly clear and in specific detail. If that doesn't suffice then you are referred to decades of sectional tensions caused by the issue. You can follow them from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852 and it's surrounding controversy to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the resulting Border War in Kansas to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 to the secession of Southern states on the splintered instant of the election of a President from an openly Abolitionist political party.Truman wrote:So is your causation of the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.
Or you can just shove your fucking head up your ass and keep telling yourself it had nothing to do with slavery. The Lost Cause woo-woo horseshit peddled by the SCV to ignorant fuckheads like you doesn't hold water. Never did and never will.
All considerably worse in the old Confederacy than in my neck of the woods, with the possible exception of unemployment.Truman wrote:Hope the crime, infant mortality, unemployment, abortion, welfare, education, poverty, and quality-of-life rates are worth yours.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Did you learn those ubb skills from shutyomouth?Sudden Sam wrote:[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/S ... ellcat.jpg
[/img]
Only Confederate I'm interested in these days.
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Even funnier how you left out cognitive reasoning in your reply, mvscal. I would’ve thought the descriptive, “Ordinance of Secession,” would’ve cleared things up for you. Generally, when one withdraws formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance, they are rebelling against said organization, association, or alliance.mvscal wrote:Funny how you left out the parts about them being in open rebellion at the time of this issue. Oh and they didn't forget to mention slavery either:Truman wrote:Funny how they left out all the slavery parts…
And that word is found where, exactly, in the preceding statement? Unless you’re trying to equate the word “Consititution” with the word “slavery”. Since when is it unconstitutional for a state to protect itself from a hostile belligerent?mvscal wrote:That's right, idiot. Slavery. It wasn't unconstitutional for the President to request troops from states to suppress an armed insurrection nor is it illegal or unconstitutional for Federal forces to enter a state. All this states' rights hemming and hawing was about slavery and nothing more. The "right" to own niggger slaves was the only thing threatened by the election of a Republican president. EOS.Truman wrote:Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers,
Missouri’s official position was that of an armed neutral, and most certainly didn’t want any piece of Lincoln’s war. The Fed didn’t like it and usurped its authority when they began seizing arms and conscripting troops. If anyone acted unconstitutionally it was the Fed. Amendment X of the United States Constitution out front shoulda told you.
mvscal wrote:That is correct. The Neosho pow wow was not a representative assembly and had no force of law. They were fugitive criminals not the state government duly assembled.Truman wrote:Oh wait... They never seceded.
Wrong answer, mvscal. Master of the Oblivious, much? I’ll use sarcasm tags next time.
From wiki:
The Charleston Mercury reported the session as follows:
"The meeting of the Missouri State Legislature, which passed the ordinance of secession at Neosho on the 2d inst. Was well attended - a full quorum being present, including 23 members of the Upper and 77 of the Lower House; 19 of the former and 68 of the latter constitute a quorum. The ordinance of secession was passed unanimously, and without a dissenting voice. It was dispatched to Richmond by a special messenger to the President, leaving Memphis yesterday morning en route." (November 25, 1861)
One of the earliest historical accounts of Missouri's role in the Civil War written by former Confederate Col. John C. Moore, who also states that a quorum was present at the session:
"In every particular it complied with the forms of law. It was called together in extraordinary session by the proclamation of the governor. There was a quorum of each house present. The governor sent to the two houses his message recommending, among other things, the passage of an act "dissolving all political connection between the State of Missouri and the United States of America." The ordinance was passed strictly in accordance with law and parliamentary usage, was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, attested by John T. Crisp, secretary of the senate, and Thomas M. Murray, clerk of the house, and approved by Claiborne F. Jackson, governor of the State."
How many times over how many threads do you want to lose this argument?
Or maybe I do. A whole bunch of others did too, apparently...mvscal wrote:Truman wrote:The Missouri Confederate flag carried by the state's regiments that you ignorantly confused with thumpery?
You don't even know whose flag you're flying. That's par for the course. It's the battle flag of Bowen's brigade and then his division, Army of the Mississippi, dumbfuck. Price didn't pick it up until his raid into Missouri in 1864 which was a disasterous failure...much like your post. Bowen died in a puddle of shit after the surrender of Vicksburg. He didn't live happily ever after in Vancouver or anywhere else.
"Missouri" Battle Flag, Trans-Mississippi Department: This flag was found almost exclusively with Missouri regiments in the Department, and that is why it is often called the "Missouri" Battle Flag. The flag was blue bordered with red with a white Roman cross near the hoist of the flag. http://www.scv674.org/csaflags
“Battle Flag of Missouri Confederate Troops (bearing the latin cross was sewn by the ladies of New Orleans)” http://www.pricecamp.org
“Among the toughest fighters in the Confederate Army were Missourians. Many of the Missouri regiments in the Trans-Mississippi West fought under this banner.” http://txscv.tripod.com/csa.htm
“The Missouri Battle Flag is designed of a white Roman Cross, blue field, and deep red trim. More than 60,000 Confederate Missouri men served under this flag. Many prestigious units such as Pindall's 9th Battalion Of Missouri Sharpshooters saw extensive service under this flag.” http://www.rulen.com/moflag/
Consider the source: You, after all, are the asshat who initially confused the Missouri Confederate battle flag with that of the Christian banner, AND once posted the asinine statement that Missouri’s star in the Confederate National Flag “was simply a gesture to honor the regiments from Missouri which fought for the Confederacy.”
Now we’re done. Go revise somebody else’s history, Loser.
Journalism Scholar Emeritus Screw_Marcus wrote:Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not?
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
No disagreement. His assessment applies to most of the Confederacy. It just doesn't apply here.BSmack wrote:mv's assesment of the reason's for secession is about as well written and concise a demolition of an opposing point of view as we are ever likely to read on this board. Rack it.
Journalism Scholar Emeritus Screw_Marcus wrote:Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not?
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Well there's that... Or you could assume mvscal is wrong for a change. And he is, regarding Missouri...Terry in Crapchester wrote: As I've said before, on those extremely rare occasions that mvscal and I happen to agree on anything even remotely political in nature, and you happen to disagree, feel free to assume that we are right and you are wrong.
Journalism Scholar Emeritus Screw_Marcus wrote:Oh OK, so what's legal and what's not determines if something is right or not?
- MuchoBulls
- Tremendous Slouch
- Posts: 5626
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:00 pm
- Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Have to put in a RACK for the Slap Shot reference earlier in the thread as well.Mikey wrote:RACK all Sgt. Pepper's resets.
Dreams......Temporary Madness
- Terry in Crapchester
- 2012 March Madness Champ
- Posts: 8995
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Back in the 'burbs
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Of course, Missouri never seceded, so your point is kinda irrelevant.Truman wrote:Well there's that... Or you could assume mvscal is wrong for a change. And he is, regarding Missouri...Terry in Crapchester wrote: As I've said before, on those extremely rare occasions that mvscal and I happen to agree on anything even remotely political in nature, and you happen to disagree, feel free to assume that we are right and you are wrong.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
- War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Somehow, I doubt it. Call it a hunch.Truman wrote: Now we’re done. Go revise somebody else’s history, Loser.
At least I hope not. I'm enjoying the debate and learning a few things in the process.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Been watching a lot of this on PBS and Netflix last couple weeks:


“My dentist, that’s another beauty, my dentist, you kiddin’ me. It cost me five thousand dollars to have all new teeth put in. Now he tells me I need braces!” —Rodney Dangerfield
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
No it's not--it's just stating an opinion, then repeating it, and then calling anyone who disagrees a (enter homoerotic profanity here)...and that's it.BSmack wrote:mv's assesment of the reason's for secession is about as well written and concise a demolition of an opposing point of view as we are ever likely to read on this board. Rack it.
That's what you call a great take?
Look, I'll demolish it with ease:
As the war raged in1862, Lincoln declared his true motivation for his complete support for it:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Thus, in his ever polished style he makes plainly clear his motivation--the preservation of the union, which would become the massive marauding imperialist empire in short order.
As for his regard for slavery, in his inauguration address he was quite clear:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
So, please, let's not pretend that Avi has actually made any sense. Or that a human rights angle was somehow at center of what Ezra Pound called "the suicide of the Anglo-Saxon race."
Before God was, I am
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
That sounds too daunting of a prospect for y'all. Why don't you start with playing a football game outside of your area code?Papa Willie wrote:Btw - how many people from down here do you see moving to Michigan? :D
- War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Rack honest Abe and the massive marauding imperialist empire that was his bequest and by extension our birthright.LTS TRN 2 wrote: Thus, in his ever polished style he makes plainly clear his motivation--the preservation of the union, which would become the massive marauding imperialist empire in short order.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Yeah, wags, are you racking the $800 trillion national debt that also naturally ensued?
Before God was, I am
-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
So that $800 trillion debt is Lincoln's fault? Fucking Republicans.
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Yeah! That's fucking telling him!MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:That sounds too daunting of a prospect for y'all. Why don't you start with playing a football game outside of your area code?Papa Willie wrote:Btw - how many people from down here do you see moving to Michigan? :D
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
Oh yeah? Well, any tard who this they are the same is an iodiot. So THERE!Cuda wrote:That's fucking telling him!
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
The collection of individuals who published that paper did not have the legal authority to withdraw Missouri from the Union. It's that simple.Truman wrote:Even funnier how you left out cognitive reasoning in your reply, mvscal. I would’ve thought the descriptive, “Ordinance of Secession,” would’ve cleared things up for you. Generally, when one withdraws formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance, they are rebelling against said organization, association, or alliance.
Right here:And that word is found where, exactly, in the preceding statement?
Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers,
The entire passage refers to slavery. Since it is plainly Constitutional for the President to call for troops to suppress an armed insurrection, they can only be talking about slavery which, of course, was present in the "Government as constructed and intended by its makers." The subversions refer to the restrictions on the spread of slavery, the refusal of Northern states to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Act and the agitation against slavery by private groups and indvidual politicians.
Tough shit. That wasn't and isn't an option. Missouri was part of the Union and obliged to defend that Union. Period. The only illegal actions were those of Missouri's governor in refusing to furnish the required regiments.Missouri’s official position was that of an armed neutral, and most certainly didn’t want any piece of Lincoln’s war.
The Fed didn’t like it and usurped its authority when they began seizing arms and conscripting troops. If anyone acted unconstitutionally it was the Fed. Amendment X of the United States Constitution out front shoulda told you.
Complete, top to bottom bullshit.
Naturally this was Confederate propaganda attempting to persuade readers of the alleged legitimacy of the gathering. The reality of the Neosho conference is that it was nothing more than a collection of fugitive Confederate sympathizers shouting over their shoulders as they hauled ass to Texas where they spent the rest of the war chewing tobacco and fingering each others' assholes.Truman wrote:The Charleston Mercury
My you really are a credulous tard, aren't you. Well, if a former confederate says so, it must be true.former Confederate Col. John C. Moore, who also states that a quorum was present at the session:
Truman wrote:The Missouri Confederate flag carried by the state's regiments that you ignorantly confused with thumpery?
No, I had you confused you with Diogenes. He's another halfwitted neo-confederate revisionist. You all babble from the same script.
Or maybe I do. A whole bunch of others did too, apparently...
Or maybe you don't. It was Bowen's flag originally. Of course his brigade and later his division was comprised primarily of Missouri troops. Very nearly half of the Confederate regulars raised in Missouri served under his command at one time or another. Price didn't adopt the flag until 1864 during his failed raid. After that you could claim it as a Missouri battle flag in that the majority of Missouri troops would have served under it.
That is absolutely correct. Of course three times as many Missourians fought for the Union than did for the Confederacy. In any event, Missouri was little more than a sideshow to the larger war in the Western and Eastern theatres of operation.Missouri’s star in the Confederate National Flag “was simply a gesture to honor the regiments from Missouri which fought for the Confederacy.”
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
- War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
whole lotta' men died in that sideshow.
- War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
decent article in Time magazine this week by David Von Dreihle about the causations of the war. Hopefully this link works and you don't have to jump thru too many hoops to read it. I subscribe to Time so as to know what the enemy is thinking.
edit: the link works. It's a long read, but worth the effort.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 79,00.html
edit: the link works. It's a long read, but worth the effort.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 79,00.html
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
A literal drop in the bucket. There were many single battles in the East and West which caused more casualties then were lost by both sides combined in Missouri.War Wagon wrote:whole lotta' men died in that sideshow.
The war in Missouri was bitterly fought but miniature in scale.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: 150 Years Ago Today
It is plainly evident that the Southern Confederacy was not persuaded by President Lincoln's allegedly benign intentions towards the institution of slavery. Were you attempting to make some kind of point?LTS TRN 2 wrote:No it's not--it's just stating an opinion, then repeating it, and then calling anyone who disagrees a (enter homoerotic profanity here)...and that's it.BSmack wrote:mv's assesment of the reason's for secession is about as well written and concise a demolition of an opposing point of view as we are ever likely to read on this board. Rack it.
That's what you call a great take?
Look, I'll demolish it with ease:
As the war raged in1862, Lincoln declared his true motivation for his complete support for it:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Thus, in his ever polished style he makes plainly clear his motivation--the preservation of the union, which would become the massive marauding imperialist empire in short order.
As for his regard for slavery, in his inauguration address he was quite clear:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
So, please, let's not pretend that Avi has actually made any sense. Or that a human rights angle was somehow at center of what Ezra Pound called "the suicide of the Anglo-Saxon race."
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.