T1B

Southern mouths wrote a check their lazy asses couldn't cash. Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.

South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year

Nice.

KC Scott wrote:In all fairness they played a meatgrinder schedule that year

or the PVC version?

mvscal wrote:Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.

We're still pissed at the Dutch for selling them to us in the first place.

War Wagon wrote:Nice.

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.

was that when he went to Joe McGrath's tent and Joe was in front of the mirror in a zebra skin jockstrap, dancing?

mvscal wrote:Southern mouths wrote a check their lazy asses couldn't cash. Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking.

Rack!

mvscal wrote:Hope your niggger slaves were worth the asskicking

Me too.

Hope the crime, infant mortality, unemployment, abortion, welfare, education, poverty, and quality-of-life rates are worth yours.

Nice non sequitur, you assfucked, Bible thumping dipshit.

mvscal wrote:Nice non sequitur, you assfucked, Bible thumping dipshit.

Bible thumping? Link?

So is your causation for the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.

Truman wrote:So is your causation of the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.

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.

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.

mvscal wrote:

Truman wrote:So is your causation of the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.

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.

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.

OUR war wasn't about slavery.

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...

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.

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.

We're done here. You really suck at this mvscal.

Casualties and losses


2 killed after the surrender, 9 wounded


1 horse killed, 4 men wounded

Real barn burner, that one.

Truman wrote:Funny how they left out all the slavery parts…

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:

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'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.

Oh wait... They never seceded.

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.

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

RACK all Sgt. Pepper's resets.

Papa Willie wrote:Only difference now is that you god damned yankees keep moving down here. Go home, motherfuckers! :D

That's no way to treat individuals who are raising your state's collective IQ.

KC Scott wrote:In all fairness they played a meatgrinder schedule that year

Those were the good 'ole days. When Ohio teams had a winning record against the South. :doh:

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.

mvscal wrote:

Truman wrote:So is your causation of the War Between the States, you brain-dead, ignorant asshat.

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.

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.

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.

Truman wrote:Hope the crime, infant mortality, unemployment, abortion, welfare, education, poverty, and quality-of-life rates are worth yours.

All considerably worse in the old Confederacy than in my neck of the woods, with the possible exception of unemployment.

Sudden Sam wrote:[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/S ... ellcat.jpg
[/img]
Only Confederate I'm interested in these days.

Did you learn those ubb skills from shutyomouth?

mvscal wrote:

Truman wrote:Funny how they left out all the slavery parts…

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:

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:

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,

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.

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?

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:

Truman wrote:Oh wait... They never seceded.

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.

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?

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.

Or maybe I do. A whole bunch of others did too, apparently...

"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.

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.

No disagreement. His assessment applies to most of the Confederacy. It just doesn't apply here.

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.

Well there's that... Or you could assume mvscal is wrong for a change. And he is, regarding Missouri...

Mikey wrote:RACK all Sgt. Pepper's resets.

Have to put in a RACK for the Slap Shot reference earlier in the thread as well.

Truman wrote:

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.

Well there's that... Or you could assume mvscal is wrong for a change. And he is, regarding Missouri...

Of course, Missouri never seceded, so your point is kinda irrelevant.

Truman wrote: Now we’re done. Go revise somebody else’s history, Loser.

Somehow, I doubt it. Call it a hunch.

At least I hope not. I'm enjoying the debate and learning a few things in the process.

Been watching a lot of this on PBS and Netflix last couple weeks:

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.

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.

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."

Papa Willie wrote:Btw - how many people from down here do you see moving to Michigan? :D

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?

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.

Rack honest Abe and the massive marauding imperialist empire that was his bequest and by extension our birthright.

Yeah, wags, are you racking the $800 trillion national debt that also naturally ensued?

So that $800 trillion debt is Lincoln's fault? Fucking Republicans.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Btw - how many people from down here do you see moving to Michigan? :D

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?

Yeah! That's fucking telling him!

Cuda wrote:That's fucking telling him!

Oh yeah? Well, any tard who this they are the same is an iodiot. So THERE!

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.

The collection of individuals who published that paper did not have the legal authority to withdraw Missouri from the Union. It's that simple.

And that word is found where, exactly, in the preceding statement?

Right here:

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.

Missouri’s official position was that of an armed neutral, and most certainly didn’t want any piece of Lincoln’s war.

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.

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.

Truman wrote:The Charleston Mercury

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.

former Confederate Col. John C. Moore, who also states that a quorum was present at the session:

My you really are a credulous tard, aren't you. Well, if a former confederate says so, it must be true.

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.

Missouri’s star in the Confederate National Flag “was simply a gesture to honor the regiments from Missouri which fought for the Confederacy.”

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.

whole lotta' men died in that sideshow.

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

War Wagon wrote:whole lotta' men died in that sideshow.

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.

The war in Missouri was bitterly fought but miniature in scale.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

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.

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.

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."

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?