Women in Combat

[JD Barleycorn]

Just like Bill Mahr. I can't believe a combat veteran (you forgot about that) would support Obama.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.. PVT Cathay Williams entirely supported the Republican agenda during the 1861-1876 time frame.

What was the "Republican agenda during the 1861-1876 time frame"?

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

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What was the "Republican agenda during the 1861-1876 time frame"?

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

Start with these, iLLiterate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtee...s_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen...s_Constitution


BTW, please show evidence of where you found recruiters knowingly enlisted women into the either the U.S. or Confederate armies during the Civil War, iLLiterate.


On the other hand, and by way of anecdotal history, both sides did knowingly enlist boys: especially the navies. The boys served as "powder monkies" aboard the "Man of Wars" and combat steam vessels of the era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_monkey.

Then there is the famous story of John Clem: AKA "Johnny Shiloh". He joined the army when he was ten and retired as a Major General after he was 64. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clem

[JD Barleycorn]

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 and it was all about both bringing the south back in and letting them know who won the war. A big part of that was getting black men to vote. They even had a government organization dedicated to that called the Freedmen's Bureau.

[LexusLover]

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 ...

.. 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.

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 ... except may be stand up and pee ... I recommend to the ladies squatting for that ... just saying, though!

What I am opposed to doing is opening the doors to any and all with a "modified" training program, segregated conditions, and "modified" requirements and conditions in the field to accommodate their "desire" to be in combat. Then there is the issue of the emotional aspects of the situation and even psychological issues that began their development shortly after departing the womb.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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 ....

.. the beginning of the "Southern" Democratic Party.

Some folks have amnesia, or have simply developed a distorted view of history, if they even studied it at all.

I'm not directing that at you JDB.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

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.

Which has been my stated position the whole friggin’ time, iLLiterate, but you and that pretentious Yankee jackass chose to perniciously and fallaciously argue otherwise.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=46

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=143

Originally Posted by LexusLover

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 ...

.. 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.

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?

. . . and your argument regarding Texas "hill country" in another thread was even more irrelevant, iLLiterate.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As you ignorantly impose your 21st century values on a society existing in the 19th century, you once again demonstrate your overwhelming historical ignorance,...

... do you believe in time machines? Just asking.

We know you believe in 150-year-old anecdotes .....

.... about the "fighting wives of the Civil War" ... so I'm thinking time machines also.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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.

We are the woooooorld, we are the chiiildreeeeen...

(C'mon, little twat, sing it with me!)

We are the ones who....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

... do you believe in time machines? Just asking.

We know you believe in 150-year-old anecdotes .....

.... about the "fighting wives of the Civil War" ... so I'm thinking time machines also.

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?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

We are the woooooorld, we are the chiiildreeeeen...

(C'mon, little twat, sing it with me!)

We are the ones who....

No, you pretentious jackass, YOU and iLLiterate are the ignorant children here.

[Chica Chaser]

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.

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

http://www.archives.gov/publications...vil-war-1.html

.gov website. The gov would never tell an untruth.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

The gov would never tell an untruth.

Of course, not. Nor would anyone else wanting to make a point or .....

.... 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, which I have noticed is consistently a symptom on this board of nothing factual to say that is in response to another's post. It's like me me referring to you as ...

"I B Half-wit"

So you think its ok to enlist children into the military today?

" Johnny Clem might well have been the smallest. Ten years old when he ran away from home and joined the second Michigan Regiment, the drummer boy won fame at the battle of Shiloh, where he put down his drum, picked up a gun, and shot a Confederate colonel. All across the Union, Clem was celebrated as a hero."

Wonder if that was one of those 1861 Springfields.

BTW. Have you ever held one? Loaded one? Fired one? Cleaned one? Hunted with one?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of course, not. Nor would anyone else wanting to make a point or .....

.... 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.

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.

Your combined attacks, you in two threads and you with your miscreant partner in this thread, were both demeaning and uncivil; hence, you received the same in return: quid pro quo. So drop your mock outrage and face the fact that you are being a moronic hypocrite, iLLiterate. BTW, you earned that sobriquet in the other thread because you ignorantly presumed to tell me the geography of my home town: which you do not know, and you earned it in this thread because you created a straw man argument wherein you wholly ignored both the facts and citations provided, and you ignored my earlier stated position on women in combat units. Later, as the argument continued, you ignorantly demanded evidence substantiating the fact that women did indeed serve in combat units during the Civil War – the self-same evidence you had earlier and so willfully ignored. Since you demanded to see what had already been provided you earned your sobriquet: “iLLiterate”.

You perniciously created at least four other straw man arguments. First, you seized upon Cathay Williams’ impressment during the Civil War and willfully ignored both my post and the article’s explicit reference to Williams’ enlistment in the army in 1866 – after the Civil War. Your second straw man argument is that a combat tour in a combat unit always requires and entails fighting: it doesn’t. Since 2002, thousands of combat soldiers have secured and patrolled the perimeters of the U.S. bases in Bagram and Kandahar: most never saw or shot at an enemy combatant while providing security for the bases or serving as escorts to places like Kabul (just an FYI, don’t presume to lecture me otherwise: I was there). Nevertheless, these combat soldiers performed their combat duty just like Cathay Williams performed her combat duties patrolling around and performing sentinel duty at Ft Bayard deep in hostile Apache territory. While Williams was at Ft Bayard there were no pitched battles; nevertheless, there were infrequent Apache attacks which resulted in some civilian and soldier fatalities.

Your third straw man argument was to claim Federal and Confederate recruiters actively recruited women into their armies. That is wholly untrue. The women that served – some 400 of them – lied and deceived to gain entry into the armies, and they enlisted for a plethora of reasons, many of which are not today known.

On the other hand, and again by way of factual-historical anecdotes, I pointed out that boys were recruited and allowed to enlist while women were legally shunned. And yes, these boys did serve a vital purpose in both the armies and the navies of both belligerents. And here's another FYI, iLLiterate, many young men lied to gain entry into the service during WWII, the youngest boy to do so was twelve:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2434215.html

If you knew more than the rudimentary American history beyond what is taught to the average high school 11th grader, you would know these stories. So once again your presumption that 'no' boy is equal to such a task, like your notion that no woman is capable of such tasks, has again been put asunder.

Your fourth straw man argument is that my position on women in combat was other than what I stated at:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=46

Further, it is that position for which I provided the factual, anecdotal evidence – evidence you ignorantly denied and pretended didn't exist – that a few, strong-willed women did serve as equals to their male counterparts in combat units in hostile combat situations during the Civil War; thus, there is historical evidence demonstrating that there are probably some, though few, women who can do so again. Your fallacious, straw man argument otherwise has been substantively and factually refuted, iLLiterate.

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

http://www.archives.gov/publications...vil-war-1.html

.gov website. The gov would never tell an untruth.

+1

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

... and in the other thread where you ignorantly presumed to lecture me on the geography of my birth place.

Was that the "Great Plains"

or the "Hill Country"?

Just asking.

Or was this another anecdote?