Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Disappointed in Loudoun
()
Date: July 22, 2015 11:19AM
They make the rest of us in Loudoun so proud. What next, I mean ,after tomorrow's Mensa meeting, for you guys? Perhaps defending the KKK, doing commentary for the Glenn Beck show, or maybe holding a rally telling the government to keep its hands off your Medicaid?
I like the fact that one claims the reporter is "three inches" away, when he was more like two feet in front of the subject. Then, Mr. Martin tells an idiot that the idiot doesn't need to record him because he is already on television every night. When the idiot realizes this "Black man" is an actual newscaster, and not "just a Black Man,"the idiot goes all quite on him.
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/roland_martin_confronts_confederate_statue_supporters_in_leesburg
BTW, The Confederate States of America armed children, many as young as 11 years old, and sent them to the battlefield. This fact alone should make you sick, and should make anyone want to condemn what the flag actually stood for. But it is only about "states' rights," correct? Got it.
I like the fact that one claims the reporter is "three inches" away, when he was more like two feet in front of the subject. Then, Mr. Martin tells an idiot that the idiot doesn't need to record him because he is already on television every night. When the idiot realizes this "Black man" is an actual newscaster, and not "just a Black Man,"the idiot goes all quite on him.
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/roland_martin_confronts_confederate_statue_supporters_in_leesburg
BTW, The Confederate States of America armed children, many as young as 11 years old, and sent them to the battlefield. This fact alone should make you sick, and should make anyone want to condemn what the flag actually stood for. But it is only about "states' rights," correct? Got it.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
historian Dave
()
Date: July 22, 2015 11:28AM
States' Rights my ass! Let us actually look at what was delivered to the people
From a speech Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens delivered on on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Ga.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”
From a speech Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens delivered on on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Ga.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: July 22, 2015 11:33AM
You do realize that children fought on both sides, as did a few women. It is hard for the 21st century mind to understand, but not too long ago the idea of going off to war was quite exciting, especially for someone raised on a farm who might otherwise not travel 100 miles from where they were born in their entire life.
Loudoun COunty has an interesting Civil War history. It was not only the heart of Mosby's Confederacy. It was also the recruiting ground for one of the better Virginia loyalist units. Despite this, and despite being under U.S. occupation for a couple of years, Sheridan burned out the western part of the county in the last year of the war, just as he burned out the Shenandoah.
Loudoun COunty has an interesting Civil War history. It was not only the heart of Mosby's Confederacy. It was also the recruiting ground for one of the better Virginia loyalist units. Despite this, and despite being under U.S. occupation for a couple of years, Sheridan burned out the western part of the county in the last year of the war, just as he burned out the Shenandoah.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: July 22, 2015 11:46AM
Ah the Cornerstone Speach. Have you ever noticed how everyone who cites it fails to mention that Alexander Stephens had supported the northern Democrat Douglas in the 1860 presidential campaign...or that when he served in Georgia's Secession Convention, Stephens tried to prevent secession. They also fail to mention that prior to Fort Sumter, several slave states actually voted against secession. I guess it is easier to present the cause of a war in simple terms if you are willing to ignore all facts which don't fit your narrative.
The neo-Abolitionists don't have a monopoly on this. Neo-Confederates do it too. The Civil War was about States Rights...if by that you mean it was about the right of states to leave the union, and to reclaim Federal property within their borders. If you want to go beyond that question and ask WHY states wanted to leave the union, you cannot ignore the issue of slavery.
The neo-Abolitionists don't have a monopoly on this. Neo-Confederates do it too. The Civil War was about States Rights...if by that you mean it was about the right of states to leave the union, and to reclaim Federal property within their borders. If you want to go beyond that question and ask WHY states wanted to leave the union, you cannot ignore the issue of slavery.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
the answer
()
Date: July 22, 2015 12:09PM
Many still "debate" the ultimate causes of the Civil War. I would like to note Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian James McPherson wrote the best summary I have read.
He wrote
"The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."
So actually, from McPherson, it was not started because of "states' rights." The cause of the war was succession over the "rights of territories," at the time, not the rights of states. And the main right, the loci, if you will, was the right to keep and hold slaves in the territories.
The South feared the anti-slavery movement toward the territories, and seceded, to avoid what they feared as the eventual freeing of all slaves by the President and the northern states.
So, the "states' rights" argument has got to stop. You guys with the flags, you are pretty darn smart, I can tell. Come up with a new and better answer.
He wrote
"The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."
So actually, from McPherson, it was not started because of "states' rights." The cause of the war was succession over the "rights of territories," at the time, not the rights of states. And the main right, the loci, if you will, was the right to keep and hold slaves in the territories.
The South feared the anti-slavery movement toward the territories, and seceded, to avoid what they feared as the eventual freeing of all slaves by the President and the northern states.
So, the "states' rights" argument has got to stop. You guys with the flags, you are pretty darn smart, I can tell. Come up with a new and better answer.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Bob. J.
()
Date: July 22, 2015 12:34PM
Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah the Cornerstone Speach. Have you ever noticed
> how everyone who cites it fails to mention that
> Alexander Stephens had supported the northern
> Democrat Douglas in the 1860 presidential
> campaign...or that when he served in Georgia's
> Secession Convention, Stephens tried to prevent
> secession. They also fail to mention that prior
> to Fort Sumter, several slave states actually
> voted against secession. I guess it is easier to
> present the cause of a war in simple terms if you
> are willing to ignore all facts which don't fit
> your narrative.
In what way do you think any of the foregoing changes the words in Stephens' "Cornerstone" speech?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah the Cornerstone Speach. Have you ever noticed
> how everyone who cites it fails to mention that
> Alexander Stephens had supported the northern
> Democrat Douglas in the 1860 presidential
> campaign...or that when he served in Georgia's
> Secession Convention, Stephens tried to prevent
> secession. They also fail to mention that prior
> to Fort Sumter, several slave states actually
> voted against secession. I guess it is easier to
> present the cause of a war in simple terms if you
> are willing to ignore all facts which don't fit
> your narrative.
In what way do you think any of the foregoing changes the words in Stephens' "Cornerstone" speech?
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: July 22, 2015 01:02PM
the answer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the "states' rights" argument has got to stop.
> You guys with the flags, you are pretty darn
> smart, I can tell. Come up with a new and better
> answer.
Do yourself a favor and search for Pulitzer Prize winning Janet Cooke.
She was actually alive during the time she wrote about.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the "states' rights" argument has got to stop.
> You guys with the flags, you are pretty darn
> smart, I can tell. Come up with a new and better
> answer.
Do yourself a favor and search for Pulitzer Prize winning Janet Cooke.
She was actually alive during the time she wrote about.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
what a maroon
()
Date: July 22, 2015 01:56PM
Disappointed in Loudoun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW, The Confederate States of America armed
> children, many as young as 11 years old, and sent
> them to the battlefield. This fact alone should
> make you sick, and should make anyone want to
> condemn what the flag actually stood for. But it
> is only about "states' rights," correct? Got it.
This, right here, shows you don't know shit from Shinola when it comes to history.
It is estimated that at least 100,000 Union soldiers were boys under 15 years old.
Look up John Clem. Look Up Elisha Stockwell, Jr. Look up Thomas C. Murphy. Look up John Cook. There are countless more, but this will be a good start to curtail your ignorance.
11 Union Soldiers under the age of 16 received the Congressional Medal of Honor.
You're a damn fool.
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW, The Confederate States of America armed
> children, many as young as 11 years old, and sent
> them to the battlefield. This fact alone should
> make you sick, and should make anyone want to
> condemn what the flag actually stood for. But it
> is only about "states' rights," correct? Got it.
This, right here, shows you don't know shit from Shinola when it comes to history.
It is estimated that at least 100,000 Union soldiers were boys under 15 years old.
Look up John Clem. Look Up Elisha Stockwell, Jr. Look up Thomas C. Murphy. Look up John Cook. There are countless more, but this will be a good start to curtail your ignorance.
11 Union Soldiers under the age of 16 received the Congressional Medal of Honor.
You're a damn fool.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
CLepC
()
Date: July 22, 2015 02:20PM
Yes the South Lost the war to the Remaining Union at the time.
Yes many who fought for the South, did so because their nation was under attack, not because of slavery.
Nobody is arguing that slavery was an issue for SC and other states to seceed.
Yes, the North started the War and agressed upon the South.
Yes, Lincoln thought the Union should stay together and revenue generated in the south was a big factor for the North.
Yes, a bigotted punk who liked the battle flag killed 9 people who didn't look like him .. forget the motive -- all crimes are hateful.
Yes, it is just a flag and a historical and cultural symbol.
Yes, some used it for racist purposes.
No we should not "attack" the flag, but we should reason through this.
Yes, some are incapable of reasoning through it, because they themselves are opportunistic and biased and or unteachable.
Yes many who fought for the South, did so because their nation was under attack, not because of slavery.
Nobody is arguing that slavery was an issue for SC and other states to seceed.
Yes, the North started the War and agressed upon the South.
Yes, Lincoln thought the Union should stay together and revenue generated in the south was a big factor for the North.
Yes, a bigotted punk who liked the battle flag killed 9 people who didn't look like him .. forget the motive -- all crimes are hateful.
Yes, it is just a flag and a historical and cultural symbol.
Yes, some used it for racist purposes.
No we should not "attack" the flag, but we should reason through this.
Yes, some are incapable of reasoning through it, because they themselves are opportunistic and biased and or unteachable.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
there is a difference
()
Date: July 22, 2015 03:11PM
what a maroon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Disappointed in Loudoun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BTW, The Confederate States of America armed
> > children, many as young as 11 years old, and
> sent
> > them to the battlefield. This fact alone
> should
> > make you sick, and should make anyone want to
> > condemn what the flag actually stood for. But
> it
> > is only about "states' rights," correct? Got
> it.
>
>
> This, right here, shows you don't know shit from
> Shinola when it comes to history.
>
> It is estimated that at least 100,000 Union
> soldiers were boys under 15 years old.
>
> Look up John Clem. Look Up Elisha Stockwell, Jr.
> Look up Thomas C. Murphy. Look up John Cook.
> There are countless more, but this will be a good
> start to curtail your ignorance.
>
> 11 Union Soldiers under the age of 16 received the
> Congressional Medal of Honor.
>
> You're a damn fool.
The Union had a rule that you had to be 18 to be drafted. Many younger than 18 enlisted because, you know, it was the 1860's and record keeping and communication were slow.
When these teenagers got in, most were assigned jobs that didn't concern rifles. As examples
Johnny Clem was a drummer (who piked up a rifle). Thomas Murphy was a bugler.
The Confederacy, on the other hand, towards the end of the war started drafting 11-13 year old boys, after exempting from the draft anyone who owned 20 or more slaves.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Disappointed in Loudoun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BTW, The Confederate States of America armed
> > children, many as young as 11 years old, and
> sent
> > them to the battlefield. This fact alone
> should
> > make you sick, and should make anyone want to
> > condemn what the flag actually stood for. But
> it
> > is only about "states' rights," correct? Got
> it.
>
>
> This, right here, shows you don't know shit from
> Shinola when it comes to history.
>
> It is estimated that at least 100,000 Union
> soldiers were boys under 15 years old.
>
> Look up John Clem. Look Up Elisha Stockwell, Jr.
> Look up Thomas C. Murphy. Look up John Cook.
> There are countless more, but this will be a good
> start to curtail your ignorance.
>
> 11 Union Soldiers under the age of 16 received the
> Congressional Medal of Honor.
>
> You're a damn fool.
The Union had a rule that you had to be 18 to be drafted. Many younger than 18 enlisted because, you know, it was the 1860's and record keeping and communication were slow.
When these teenagers got in, most were assigned jobs that didn't concern rifles. As examples
Johnny Clem was a drummer (who piked up a rifle). Thomas Murphy was a bugler.
The Confederacy, on the other hand, towards the end of the war started drafting 11-13 year old boys, after exempting from the draft anyone who owned 20 or more slaves.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
chyvM
()
Date: July 22, 2015 03:13PM
Well, there were pressing reasons for those decisions too.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:04PM
Bob. J. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In what way do you think any of the foregoing
> changes the words in Stephens' "Cornerstone"
> speech?
It calls into question whether Stephens actually meant what he said in the Cornerstone speech, and whether the views he expressed in the Cornerstone speech reflected what other Confederates believed.
there is a difference Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Union had a rule that you had to be 18 to be
> drafted. Many younger than 18 enlisted because,
> you know, it was the 1860's and record keeping and
> communication were slow.
>
> When these teenagers got in, most were assigned
> jobs that didn't concern rifles. As examples
Some did and some didn't. It depended in part on the unit commander.
> The Confederacy, on the other hand, towards the
> end of the war started drafting 11-13 year old
> boys,
I am not aware that the draft laws of the CSA ever officially permitted the drafting anyone under 16. If you have a cite to a Confederate draft law saying otherwise, I'd love to see it. Unoffically shit happens.
You did have certain Home Guard units raised under state authority for local defense purposes that included younger and older men. Confederate commanders did not think highly of these units and tried to avoid using them in actual combat. I believe most actions the Home Guards were involved in were against U.S. troops engaged in destructive raids, such as those carried out by Wilson. It does make a difference when the people you are fighting are specifically coming to burn your industries, warehouses and barns, tear up your railroads and bridges and loot your homes. Not all of this was being done by U.S. forces though. Some was by Confederate deserters and by others.
> after exempting from the draft anyone who owned 20 or more slaves.
Wasn't this exemption was passed after Lincoln proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation, thus making it desirable that there be local men to manage to watch the slaves? Actually I am surprised this connection isn't played up more as a response to the neo-Confederate arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In what way do you think any of the foregoing
> changes the words in Stephens' "Cornerstone"
> speech?
It calls into question whether Stephens actually meant what he said in the Cornerstone speech, and whether the views he expressed in the Cornerstone speech reflected what other Confederates believed.
there is a difference Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Union had a rule that you had to be 18 to be
> drafted. Many younger than 18 enlisted because,
> you know, it was the 1860's and record keeping and
> communication were slow.
>
> When these teenagers got in, most were assigned
> jobs that didn't concern rifles. As examples
Some did and some didn't. It depended in part on the unit commander.
> The Confederacy, on the other hand, towards the
> end of the war started drafting 11-13 year old
> boys,
I am not aware that the draft laws of the CSA ever officially permitted the drafting anyone under 16. If you have a cite to a Confederate draft law saying otherwise, I'd love to see it. Unoffically shit happens.
You did have certain Home Guard units raised under state authority for local defense purposes that included younger and older men. Confederate commanders did not think highly of these units and tried to avoid using them in actual combat. I believe most actions the Home Guards were involved in were against U.S. troops engaged in destructive raids, such as those carried out by Wilson. It does make a difference when the people you are fighting are specifically coming to burn your industries, warehouses and barns, tear up your railroads and bridges and loot your homes. Not all of this was being done by U.S. forces though. Some was by Confederate deserters and by others.
> after exempting from the draft anyone who owned 20 or more slaves.
Wasn't this exemption was passed after Lincoln proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation, thus making it desirable that there be local men to manage to watch the slaves? Actually I am surprised this connection isn't played up more as a response to the neo-Confederate arguments.
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
what a maroon
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:23PM
there is a difference Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a maroon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Disappointed in Loudoun Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BTW, The Confederate States of America armed
> > > children, many as young as 11 years old, and
> > sent
> > > them to the battlefield. This fact alone
> > should
> > > make you sick, and should make anyone want to
> > > condemn what the flag actually stood for.
> But
> > it
> > > is only about "states' rights," correct? Got
> > it.
> >
> >
> > This, right here, shows you don't know shit
> from
> > Shinola when it comes to history.
> >
> > It is estimated that at least 100,000 Union
> > soldiers were boys under 15 years old.
> >
> > Look up John Clem. Look Up Elisha Stockwell,
> Jr.
> > Look up Thomas C. Murphy. Look up John Cook.
> > There are countless more, but this will be a
> good
> > start to curtail your ignorance.
> >
> > 11 Union Soldiers under the age of 16 received
> the
> > Congressional Medal of Honor.
> >
> > You're a damn fool.
>
>
> The Union had a rule that you had to be 18 to be
> drafted. Many younger than 18 enlisted because,
> you know, it was the 1860's and record keeping and
> communication were slow.
>
> When these teenagers got in, most were assigned
> jobs that didn't concern rifles. As examples
>
> Johnny Clem was a drummer (who piked up a rifle).
> Thomas Murphy was a bugler.
>
> The Confederacy, on the other hand, towards the
> end of the war started drafting 11-13 year old
> boys, after exempting from the draft anyone who
> owned 20 or more slaves.
Wrong. The draft age in the Confederacy was 18-35.
On April 16th, the Confederacy adopted a law that provided for support of the army by extending the terms of enlistment of currently enrolled soldiers to three years from the date of original enlistment. In addition, the law made all white males between the ages of 18 and 35 who were citizens of a state in the Confederacy subject to national military service for a term of three years, unless released at an earlier date by the President.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a maroon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Disappointed in Loudoun Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BTW, The Confederate States of America armed
> > > children, many as young as 11 years old, and
> > sent
> > > them to the battlefield. This fact alone
> > should
> > > make you sick, and should make anyone want to
> > > condemn what the flag actually stood for.
> But
> > it
> > > is only about "states' rights," correct? Got
> > it.
> >
> >
> > This, right here, shows you don't know shit
> from
> > Shinola when it comes to history.
> >
> > It is estimated that at least 100,000 Union
> > soldiers were boys under 15 years old.
> >
> > Look up John Clem. Look Up Elisha Stockwell,
> Jr.
> > Look up Thomas C. Murphy. Look up John Cook.
> > There are countless more, but this will be a
> good
> > start to curtail your ignorance.
> >
> > 11 Union Soldiers under the age of 16 received
> the
> > Congressional Medal of Honor.
> >
> > You're a damn fool.
>
>
> The Union had a rule that you had to be 18 to be
> drafted. Many younger than 18 enlisted because,
> you know, it was the 1860's and record keeping and
> communication were slow.
>
> When these teenagers got in, most were assigned
> jobs that didn't concern rifles. As examples
>
> Johnny Clem was a drummer (who piked up a rifle).
> Thomas Murphy was a bugler.
>
> The Confederacy, on the other hand, towards the
> end of the war started drafting 11-13 year old
> boys, after exempting from the draft anyone who
> owned 20 or more slaves.
Wrong. The draft age in the Confederacy was 18-35.
On April 16th, the Confederacy adopted a law that provided for support of the army by extending the terms of enlistment of currently enrolled soldiers to three years from the date of original enlistment. In addition, the law made all white males between the ages of 18 and 35 who were citizens of a state in the Confederacy subject to national military service for a term of three years, unless released at an earlier date by the President.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/
Re: Loudoun idiots and AmericaOne news reporter
Posted by:
Mjwth
()
Date: July 22, 2015 05:29PM
Lincoln messed up this land of ours more than ever ... well maybe not as bad as Bama is doin' right now.
Lincoln was the real traitor to Freedom.
Slavery would have diminshed and faded on its' own.
Lincoln was the real traitor to Freedom.
Slavery would have diminshed and faded on its' own.