.. PVT Cathay Williams entirely supported the Republican agenda during the 1861-1876 time frame. Originally Posted by I B HankeringWhat was the "Republican agenda during the 1861-1876 time frame"?
What was the "Republican agenda during the 1861-1876 time frame"?Start with these, iLLiterate:
Recruiting the wives of servicemembers to serve with their husbands? Just asking.
http://eweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/repplat6.htm
Here's the "platform" .. I'm still looking for the "agenda"!
A description of the Republican Party of 1861.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/republicans.htm Originally Posted by LexusLover
This is good. You both do know that women couldn't vote in those days don't you? Anyway, the GOP agenda changed greatly after 1865 and the conclusion of the war. It was now called reconstruction .... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn.. the beginning of the "Southern" Democratic Party.
Oh, IBH, you might want to review my past posts in which I have repeatedly stated I do not have a "problem" with females doing whatever they wish to do in the military so long as they meet the same qualifications as their male counter-parts to be. Originally Posted by LexusLoverWhich has been my stated position the whole friggin’ time, iLLiterate, but you and that pretentious Yankee jackass chose to perniciously and fallaciously argue otherwise.
IBH, is still trying to justify allowing all females into combat in 2013 based on stories of women (now children) in the military during the civil war ...As you ignorantly impose your 21st century values on a society existing in the 19th century, you once again demonstrate your overwhelming historical ignorance, iLLiterate. BTW, iLLiterate, where's your proof recruiters knowingly enlisted women during the Civil War?
.. unfortunately his "new" sales pitch ... "they even allowed 10-year-olds in" ... shows the lack of standards back then and the low expectations of those dragged into the service.
Highly irrelevant to the thread discussion. Originally Posted by LexusLover
As you ignorantly impose your 21st century values on a society existing in the 19th century, you once again demonstrate your overwhelming historical ignorance,... Originally Posted by I B Hankering... do you believe in time machines? Just asking.
You've always lived in the Twilight Zone, you pretentious jackass. It's a congenital defect that all Yankee liberals such as your self suffer from. Once again you've demonstrated what a pretentious jack-ASS you really are with your pretentious ASS-umptions. Originally Posted by I B HankeringWe are the woooooorld, we are the chiiildreeeeen...
... do you believe in time machines? Just asking.You're blathering nonsense, iLLiterate. Your references to "time macchines" are inanely stupid reflecting the character of your POV: which is inanely stupid! Women DID enlist and fight along side their husbands during the Civil War, and no amount of your sputtering nonsense will change that noteworthy fact. The anecdotes proffered are historical facts; so, what's not to believe, iLLiterate?
We know you believe in 150-year-old anecdotes .....
.... about the "fighting wives of the Civil War" ... so I'm thinking time machines also. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Men were not the only ones to fight that war. Women bore arms and charged into battle, too. Like the men, there were women who lived in camp, suffered in prisons, and died for their respective causes.http://www.archives.gov/publications...vil-war-1.html
Both the Union and Confederate armies forbade the enlistment of women. Women soldiers of the Civil War therefore assumed masculine names, disguised themselves as men, and hid the fact they were female. Because they passed as men, it is impossible to know with any certainty how many women soldiers served in the Civil War. Estimates place as many as 250 women in the ranks of the Confederate army
The gov would never tell an untruth. Originally Posted by Chica ChaserOf course, not. Nor would anyone else wanting to make a point or .....
Of course, not. Nor would anyone else wanting to make a point or .....Point of fact, iLLiterate, you – and your Yankee jackass partner – made a sustained, pernicious and fallacious attack on an anecdotal post that was supported by facts in this thread and in the other thread where you ignorantly presumed to lecture me on the geography of my birth place.
.... glorifying those from the past in order to sell a book or an agenda.
http://www.historynet.com/ten-myths-...le-bighorn.htm
Furthermore, IBH, the flaw in your obsessive use of women who disguised themselves as men to sneak into the military during the Civil War to "justify" including "Women in Combat" is that during the Civil War there were many CHILDREN who were ENLISTED and who participated in combat ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...le/grant-kids/
.. so one could use the same "logic" to justify the enlistment of CHILDREN today ... it's flawed....your logic that is ...
and the best you have is name calling. Originally Posted by LexusLover
+1Men were not the only ones to fight that war. Women bore arms and charged into battle, too. Like the men, there were women who lived in camp, suffered in prisons, and died for their respective causes.http://www.archives.gov/publications...vil-war-1.html
Both the Union and Confederate armies forbade the enlistment of women. Women soldiers of the Civil War therefore assumed masculine names, disguised themselves as men, and hid the fact they were female. Because they passed as men, it is impossible to know with any certainty how many women soldiers served in the Civil War. Estimates place as many as 250 women in the ranks of the Confederate army
.gov website. The gov would never tell an untruth. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser