Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress

Expand Messages
  • Raymond OHara
    you haven t posted a fact yet.if calling you out for posting untruths is mus-slinging prepared to get dirty. ... From: Edwin Subject:
    Message 1 of 355 , Jun 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      you haven't posted a fact yet.
      if calling you out for posting untruths is mus-slinging prepared to get dirty.


      --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Edwin <gmliberty2@...> wrote:

      From: Edwin <gmliberty2@...>
      Subject: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
      To: 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 9:49 AM

       

      You're only good at mud-slinging Raymond. The truth is that the facts are not on your side.

      --- In 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com, Raymond OHara <raymondohara@...> wrote:
      >

      > ---You make the classic mistake every Neo-Con makes.you take the Traitors cause, slavery, and assume the Union's cause must be 180% opposite it.since the South was fighting to preserve and extend slavery the North must be fighting against slavery.its not that simple.
      > the North was fight to preserve the Union and to uphold and defend the Constitution.

      >

      > If the northern army was fighting to free the slaves, why didn't Davis order his men to save them from drowning in the swollen currents of Ebenezer Creek instead of ordering them to cross the bridge and then destroy it before the slaves could cross over safely?
      >
      > The truth is becoming more and more shabby from the northern side of this story.
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      >


    • Edwin
      10-4 on twisting history, Robert. But I ve had more than enough of your and Raymond s rants, and false accusations against JR and me. I m going to quit this
      Message 355 of 355 , Jun 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        10-4 on twisting history, Robert. But I've had more than enough of your and Raymond's rants, and false accusations against JR and me. I'm going to quit this conversation and go about doing what I have to do to take back my country.

        It will be interesting to see the boring messages slow to an almost complete stop again, soon.

        Robert Moore <cenantua@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm sure as hell no propagandist, but I am enough of an historian to get plenty irked when people twist history and use it for any number of contemporary agendas. Politicians (no matter the party), the media, religious groups, and radical fringe elements all making history into their silly putty... and then having the audacity to call historians revisionists.
        >
        > Enjoy your dance party... I hear the grape kool-aid can be smooth...
        >
        > Coly,
        >
        > This is your ListServ, so what you do with it is up to you, but really... can we actually get back to discussing history in lieu of contemporary conspiracies to take over the country... because someone from 145 years ago made someone today get all bent out of shape?
        >
        > Robert
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@...>
        > To: 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 10:42:11 PM
        > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        >
        >
        > You are quite a propagandist Robert and Raymond, but the truth has found you out. JR and I are not talking modern politics here, we're talking about we're going to take back our country that lincoln stole from us. As our Constitutional candidate for governor of Georgia says "We are going to get the federal government to HELL out of our lives." Now if y'all want to continue with your verbal trashing of us hang on to your seats because going to take back our country soon.
        >
        > Deo Vindice in Jesus Christ's Holy name. Amen!
        > Edwin Gravitt living on Wm. T. Sherman's "scorched earth."
        >
        > Raymond OHara <raymondohara@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Edwin and JD care little about what was referred too.their point is modern politics , all "facts" must be twisted bent made up or ignored as the case may be to serve that purpose.their game is clear and its pointless talking with them as they are impervious to the historical record.
        > >
        > > --- On Thu, 6/3/10, Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: Robert Moore <cenantua@>
        > > Subject: Re: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 7:06 PM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Â
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Um... no, that's not at all what I was referring to... Â
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@yahoo. com>
        > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 8:40:37 PM
        > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S.
        > > Congress
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Â
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The Confederate States of America was and is a Constitutional government operating under illegal U.S. federal martial law. Rant all you like Robert, that's how it is, pure and simple. Stay tuned and ready for more.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > A fine example of nonsense is this continual belief that the responses are reflective of an attack on the "Southern people". What a crock of garbage. At what point in this exchange have I "attacked the Southern people"? As for faulting Davis, yup, I see problems with him and the Confederate government. For those who think life was all peaches and cream under the domain of the CSA, the grass is always greener...
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > I see various injustices to Southern people in the effort made by some Southerners in the quest for secession. I don't think anyone in this exchange has attacked Lee, but DiLorenzo merits the criticism for bad history... and it's apparent that you've nursed off of him. He's a poster boy for neo-confeds because he helps to frame a scapegoat for the Lost Cause.
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > Additionally, you appear to believe that the Confederacy was a representative government of the "Southern people", as if there was a solid South in sentiment. That's hogwash and an insult to all those who did not partake or did not partake willingly in support of the "Confederate cause", black and white. Many of those same people, whether you like it or not, rallied behind Union and Lincoln... many remained indifferent and were just fine without either government dragging them into war...
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
        > >
        > > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@ ..>
        > >
        > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 2:45:34 PM
        > >
        > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > I am only concerned with the truth about Abe Lincoln and his unconstitutional civil war that led to the destruction of our once great Republican form of a government of Freedom for all of us, black, white, red yellow, blue and green. If you want to attack me for my religious views and the truth as I see it, feel free to do so, if it is okay with the moderator. Truth is the truth is not a rhetorical question except to those who don't want to hear it. Now, Jeffrey, I am not going to attack your person, but I will attack your illogical logic, which you have shown is all you have. Now, what I have just said is probably "volatile" to you, but some times it is just necessary to hit a mule upside the head with a 2 by 4 to get his attention. Now, why don't you give us something factual with back up proof of what you are contending in this discussion, because you, Robert and Raymond have, so far, been devoid of anything rational in your missives. Prove to me
        > > that
        > >
        > > > the north was right and the South wrong. Attacking me, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. DiLorenzo and the Southern people is just proving to me that you have not the knowledge or ability to recognize and admit the truth. I hope this will be helpful to you and the others I mentioned.
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > Praise be to Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen!
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > Edwin Gravitt
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > In the name of Jesus, I yield the floor to you, Jeffrey. Deo Vindice. Amen!
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > > --- In 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > The "truth"... and what is the "truth"? It's a rhetorical question, so no need to answer. The "truth" as you are selling it is "your truth", and it has a very narrow scope. Now, if you want to present history, and discuss its many facets, that's one thing, but you are trying to sell a particular spin, and it's so very tainted, and volatile. So, in lieu of your pitch to gain recruits for your version of anarchy, what would you really like to discuss in regard to the war? Would you like to discuss Lincoln's flaws? Sure, but if so, be ready to open yourself up to the flaws of Davis and party. Can you handle that? Can you actually discuss that without repeating the same thing about Lincoln, over and over again as if you can't hear anything else being said about flaws in everything else? Probably not since your rage against a dead man swells your heart and your head, and that's what blinds you. The reality is that "truth", when it comes to history,
        > > is not
        > >
        > > > > simply stated. History is far more complex that there is rarely a clear truth. The deeper one digs, the less clear definitive "answers" become.
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
        > >
        > > > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@>
        > >
        > > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 1:53:17 PM
        > >
        > > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > Robert, I just wish you could attack my messages rather than me. I don't need to defend myself and I can and have shown much proof of what I have said on this board. The truth must be told and I will tell it to the very best of my ability. It is not impossible to know the truth, but for many it is impossible to believe.
        > >
        > > > > Thank you for your time and for shining the light of your ignorance around the world in less than a nano second.
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > > > Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > If you don't like criticism of your rhetorical pitch, don't play. Presentation of historical information, no matter how warped the info, is just as subject to critical review as any work. Likewise, when the agenda is clear, the "history" presented is subject to even greater scrutiny as there is no objectivity. You have opened the door to criticism on all fronts. Your argument is crumbling beneath you, but you can't see it. Ignorance is bliss.
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Only in your mind (and of course, in that of JR), have you been unchallenged about your views of Lincoln. You haven't acknowledged your own mistakes, which have been pointed out several times. You fail to acknowledge the complexities of the Southern people at the time of the war (let alone the dynamics of sentiment found there), or even that the Confederate government was just as guilty for things such as coercion and and heavy-handedness with its own people.
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > I could care less what you believe, but when you try to sell it as history to others, it becomes personal among those who really care about history.
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Go if you will. Conversations will renew again without you.
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
        > >
        > > > > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@>
        > >
        > > > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 1:27:39 PM
        > >
        > > > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Robert I have been under attack since I started this thread and no one here has proven me wrong about Lincoln. When you can't attack the message with truthfulness, attacking the messenger does not mean you are right. To me it means you have no clue as to what is right. But thank you anyway. You have better enlightened me on the cause of the problems we face together.
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Now, this board has been all but dead since I quit posting to it months ago. Shall I go again and wait until I see it dying again?
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Deo Vindice. Amen!
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > The point, Edwin, is that I didn't engage anyway... no engagement, no victory... but feel free to claim it as if you were some McClellan, if that makes you feel better about yourself and your agenda. You've yet to make any real historical points of value here and frankly, I find your chatter of little value in the general or detailed study of the war. Outside serious historical studies, I am justifiably annoyed by any claims that one has an absolute understanding of a founding father, especially when one cites one thing said, while ignoring other things said by that person.
        > >
        > > > > > ____________ _________ _________
        > >
        > > > > > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@>
        > >
        > > > > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 1:13:17 PM
        > >
        > > > > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > Sounds like a concession speech to me Robert. Would you like to try, try again? I'm listening.
        > >
        > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > --- In 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > Must be blissful for you to enjoy hollow and meaningless victories. You've won nothing except in your own mind.
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@>
        > >
        > > > > > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 1:01:03 PM
        > >
        > > > > > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > Looks like I have won another round. !(:o)
        > >
        > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > I already had my turn... like I said, you must have missed the second part of your seance with PH.
        > >
        > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _______
        > >
        > > > > > > > > From: Edwin <gmliberty2@>
        > >
        > > > > > > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 12:51:43 PM
        > >
        > > > > > > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > Even my old friend Patrick Henry made a few mistakes. Some of them were corrected by other famous people, who were also my old friends.
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > Your turn Robert.
        > >
        > > > > > > > > Let the truth be told for God and the Republican form of a government He gave to us by His Handymen the Forefathers of our Country. Deo Vindice. Amen to Jesus Christ our Lord.
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > Robert Moore <cenantua@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > "Your old friend Patrick Henry also told you that once ratified, the US
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Constitution was an agreement from which you could never leave."
        > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Guess he had to skip out before that part of the seance... :-)
        > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > R
        > >
        > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > From: cashg79 <CashG79@>
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > To: 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 12:26:28 PM
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Subject: [20th_Massachusetts _Infantry_ Regiment] Re: Act of Lincoln's U.S. Congress
        > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In 20th_Massachusetts_ Infantry_ Regiment@ yahoogroups. com, "Edwin" <gmliberty2@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Nowhere in the Constitution is secession prohibited.
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > ------------ -
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Article VI, Clause 2 prevents any ordinance of secession unilaterally passed by a state from ever taking effect.
        > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is for the people to restrain the government." ~~My old friend Patrick Henry told me that. ~(:o)
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > ------------ -
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Your old friend Patrick Henry also told you that once ratified, the US Constitution was an agreement from which you could never leave.
        > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Regards,
        > >
        > > > > > > > > > Cash
        > >
        > > > > >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.