Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > UWOA > Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2005, 10:34   #61
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Further investigative research completed.

It would appear that in order to discuss this further with any hope of agreement, we are going to have to define the terms "lawyer" and "Confederate General".

The following is what I have found on each of the disputed eight:

Wade Hampton is a Confederate Major General who may have studied law, but was never recognized or practiced law:

"He graduated from South Carolina College in 1826 and studied law, but he did not practice."

"...graduated from the South Carolina College (now the University of South Carolina) at Columbia in 1836; studied law but never practiced."

As you surmised, I would not call that being a lawyer. I have studied physics, but would not consider myself a physicist.

William Wirt Allen was another Confederate Major General who never practiced law before the war.

"General William Wirt Allen was born in New York City on September 11, 1835. He was raised in Montgomery, Alabama, and was graduated from Princeton in the class of 1854. Although he had read law, he took up the life of a planter and was thus engaged at the outbreak of the war."

I can find no reference of Confederate Major General James Patton Anderson studying or practicing law. He was, to all acounts I can find, a physician, a U.S. Marshal and a politician:

"James Patton Anderson Born in Franklin County, Tennessee, on February 16, 1822, Anderson grew up in Mississippi. Although he attended college briefly in southwest Pennsylvania, a family financial crisis forced him to withdraw before graduation. Called "Patton" by his associates, he began studying and practicing medicine. Later, he fought in the Mexican War, served in the Mississippi legislature, as a U.S. marshal for Washington Territory, and was elected to the U.S. Congress. After two years, he moved to Florida, set up a plantation near Monticello, and participated in the Florida state secession convention.

Confederate Major General William Brimage Bate was indeed a pre-war lawyer:

"BATE, William Brimage, a Senator from Tennessee; born near Castalian Springs, Sumner County, Tenn., October 7, 1826; completed an academic course of study; served as a private in Louisiana and Tennessee regiments throughout the Mexican War; member, State house of representatives 1849-1851; graduated from the law department of Lebanon University, Lebanon, Tenn., in 1852; admitted to the bar and commenced practice in Gallatin, Tenn.; elected attorney general for the Nashville district in 1854; during the Civil War served in the Confederate army, attained the rank of major general, surrendered with the Army of the Tennessee in 1865; after the war returned to Tennessee and resumed the practice of law at Gallatin."

It would appear that Confederate Brigadier General William George Mackey Davis "read law" and "practiced law" before the War, in Tallahassee, Florida:

"William George Mackey Davis, a rather wealthy Leon County lawyer, “. . . widely known as a gentleman of great legal ability and high rank in his profession . ." took it upon himself to form a regiment of Cavalry in the summer of 1861."

Similarly, Confederate Brigadier General Marcus Joseph Wright practiced as a lawyer before the Civil War, (though I can find no record of formal schooling):

"Marcus Joseph Wright was born in Purdy, McNair county, Tenn., in 1831. He was the son of Capt. Benjamin Wright of the 39 Regular Infantry who served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, and grandson of Capt. John Wright of the Georgia Line, Continental Army. He practiced law and entered the Confederate Army in May, 1861, as lieutenant-colonel of the 154 Senior Regiment of Tennessee Infantry"

James Lusk Alcorn was another politician who may have practiced law without qualification, but was never recognized by the Confederacy as a General Officer.

"ALCORN, James Lusk, statesman, born near Golconda, Illinois, 4 November 1816. He early removed to Kentucky, and was educated at Cumberland College. For five years he was deputy sheriff of Livingston County, Kentucky, and in 1843 was elected to the legislature. In 1844 he removed to Mississippi and began the practice of law. From 1846 to 1865 he served in one branch or the other of the legislature. In 1852 he was chosen elector- at -large on the Scott ticket, and in 1857 was nominated as governor by the Whigs. This he declined, and was a candidate for congress in that year, but was defeated by L. Q. C. Lamar. He was the founder of the levee system in his state, and in 1858 he became president of the levee board of the Mississippi-Yazoo Delta. In 1861 he was elected Brigadier-General by the state convention, of which he was a member, but Jefferson Davis refused his commission"

He served in command of a group of 60 day volunteers, I can find no indication that he ever saw action.

Arthur Pendleton Bagby is another politician cum lawyer who was never recognized as a Confederate General Officer outside of his command. He did see combat and all indications are that he served well and faithfully.

"Arthur Pendleton Bagby (1833-1921), lawyer, editor, and Confederate general, was born in Claiborne, Monroe County, Alabama, on May 17, 1833, the son of Arthur Pendleton Bagby. The elder Bagby served in the Alabama state Senate and House of Representatives, where he was the youngest member ever elected speaker. He was also twice elected governor of Alabama, served in the United States Senate, where he supported the annexation of Texas, and was appointed United States ambassador to Russia by President James K. Polk.

The younger Bagby attended school in Washington, D.C., and the United States Military Academy at West Point. At age nineteen he became the youngest graduate to be commissioned a second lieutenant of infantry. He was stationed at Fort Columbus, New York, in 1852-53 and saw frontier duty at Fort Chadbourne, Texas, in 1853 with the Eighth Infantry, Eighth Military Department. He resigned to study law, was admitted to the bar in Alabama in 1855, and practiced in Mobile until 1858, when he moved to Gonzales, Texas. There he married Frances Taylor in June 1860.

Upon the eruption of the Civil War he joined the Confederate Army and raised the first company of men from the Victoria area for the cause. He served as a major, Seventh Regiment of Texas Mounted Volunteers, in Gen. Henry H. Sibley's Army of New Mexico. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in April 1862 and later to colonel. On January 1, 1863, he led his regiment in the battle of Galveston, in which his "Horse Marines" assisted in the capture of the federal ship Harriet Lane. In this encounter Bagby won, according to Gen. John B. Magruder, "imperishable renown." Bagby later served under generals Richard Taylor and Thomas Green in western Louisiana, where he was wounded in fighting along Bayou Teche on April 13, 1863. For his service in Louisiana he was promoted for gallantry in action to brigadier general in early 1864 by E. Kirby Smith, although the rank was not approved in Richmond.

Following the surrenders of Lee and Johnston, Bagby was assigned to duty as major general on May 16, 1865, by E. Kirby Smith. He was placed in command of all cavalry forces in Louisiana and held that post until the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Department. Bagby's latest promotion, however, was not approved in Richmond either. Thus Bagby was a general only as a result of a temporary appointment by Smith's headquarters."

Based on this, I would not call Wade Hampton, William Wirt Allen, James Patton Anderson, James Lusk Alcorn, or Arthur Pendleton Bagby, Confederate General Officers who were lawyers before the Civil War.

I would cede that William Brimage Bate and William George Mackey Davis were lawyers before the Civil War who became Confederate General Officers.

That would make the count 152, by my reckoning.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2005, 16:32   #62
magician
Quiet Professional
 
magician's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 856
Holy shit.

Pardon me while I back on out of here.

__________________

1st Platoon "Bad 'Muthers," Company A, 2d Ranger Battalion, 1980-1984;
ODA 151, Company B, 2d Battalion, 1SFGA, 1984-1986.
SFQC 04-84; Ranger class 14-81.
magician is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2005, 18:15   #63
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by magician
Holy shit.

Pardon me while I back on out of here.

Don't worry.

A hundred years from now people will be doing that with you and your history.

Make sure to leave them something interesting.

The stuff you have written is a good start.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2005, 18:48   #64
HOLLiS
Area Commander
 
HOLLiS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Posts: 1,495
Great Thread.

The South Raised the first black Regiments, New Orleans home quard. Native Americans served the South 2:1 to the North. The South was not anymore racist than the North. If Northern Generals listened to run-aways at Menassas/Bull Run, the North may have had a victory. We were a country divided......... Not a country of two different groups of people with different beliefs.

Georgia had areas that were strong Unionist, Just as the North had Copper heads.

IMHO slavery was ending, it was a matter of time. But the Change in political power and representation between a Industrial North and a agrarian South couldnot seem to be reconciled.

IMHO, The major the important factor of the North was President Lincoln, and major failure in the South was Jeff Davis. A good read is, "A Southerns View of the War" by Mr. William Pollard, he was the editor of the Richmond Journal during the war of Northern Aggression.

IF the North was really for Abolition/Civil rights............ why was the reconstruction/retribution period following the war so poorly administered? Also read the Surpreme Court decission on "Plessy Vs Ferguson" and "Brown Vs the Board of Education". I hope I have the titles rights, it has been a while.

On King David Hotel, the Stern Gang were terrorist. Personally I liked the Haganah. "AND" Yes the British Military did not plan well.
HOLLiS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2005, 20:30   #65
Peregrino
Quiet Professional
 
Peregrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 4,701
This is NOT a hijack and the post is in the right thread. For those of you with an interest in Insurgency-Civil War and the time/inclination to read a work of "speculative" fiction I strongly encourage you to check out "A State of Disobedience" by Tom Kratman. I just blew through it in about six hours non-stop. It raises some disturbing spectres. Texans will love it, everybody who has ever sworn the "Protect and Defend" oath will pause to think, and it will definitely stir emotions (fan flames) on both sides of the aisle. Klinton advocates are already frothing at the mouth. My .02 - Peregrino
Peregrino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 15:45   #66
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
RL, do you believe that the Federal government should have usurped the states rights' that it has in the past 140 years?
No, generally not.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 15:53   #67
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
I could have counted them all, but did not see the relevance of a peripheral discussion when the primary point of my response about Insurrection vs. Civil War remained unanswered by RL, who asked the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
What is the difference between an insurgency and an "armed rebellion"? The latter is a subset of the first, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Not relevant to me in this case, since I disagree with the premise.

On a theoretical discussion, since JCS Pub 1-02 defines insurgency as :

"insurgency — (*) An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict."

The Confederacy attempted a seccession, initially peacefully. The Union denied that. Prior to the War, it could be argued that states freely joining the Union, could decide to freely leave the Union. There was no effort to overthrow the Federal government. Thus, I would submit that there was no effort to overthrow the government, just to declare independence and secede from it.
I'm not clear on what I was supposed to answer, but your response confirms what I said, which is that "armed rebellion" is a subset of "insurgency."

I am not well-versed in the history of the Civil War and have no reason to doubt your statement that the North invaded the South in response to what could have been a peaceful secession.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 16:10   #68
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
No, generally not.
Well, it has been a downhill slide since 1783, with real acceleration since 1865.

I wish that the States were able to establish and run their own affairs, without the yoke of the massive Federal bureaucracy and millions of Federal statutes.

At least you could move to a better place if your State went too far from your vision.

What did the Founding Fathers like GEORGE WASHINGTON, JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JOHN JAY, GEORGE MASON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, EDMUND RANDOLPH, ROGER SHERMAN, or JAMES WILSON say about the people's right to overthrow the government, if it became oppressive? Did they believe that the government they established was supposed to operate in perpetuity? Do you think they would approve of today's federal government?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 16:14   #69
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Well, it has been a downhill slide since 1783, with real acceleration since 1865.

I wish that the States were able to establish and run their own affairs, without the yoke of the massive Federal bureaucracy and millions of Federal statutes.

At least you could move to a better place if your State went too far from your vision.

What did the Founding Fathers like GEORGE WASHINGTON, JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JOHN JAY, GEORGE MASON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, EDMUND RANDOLPH, ROGER SHERMAN, or JAMES WILSON say about the people's right to overthrow the government, if it became oppressive? Did they believe that the government they established was supposed to operate in perpetuity? Do you think they would approve of today's federal government?

TR
We are on the same page.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 16:15   #70
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
I'm not clear on what I was supposed to answer, but your response confirms what I said, which is that "armed rebellion" is a subset of "insurgency."
The issue was, given the definitions of an insurgency, did you agree or disagree with the position that you posted by Bard O'Neill?

Do you think that the American Civil War was an armed insurgency?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 16:32   #71
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
The issue was, given the definitions of an insurgency, did you agree or disagree with the position that you posted by Bard O'Neill?

Do you think that the American Civil War was an armed insurgency?

TR

The only reason I posted O'Neill's view was that I am reading his new (newly revised, technically) book and thought some might be interested in his opinion. I don't think I know enough to answer your question, but it seems to me that you can argue it either way.

Your argument seems to be that because the South's attempt to secede initially was peaceful, and the North started the armed hostilities, there was no insurgency. I don't know if that matters. There certainly was an attempt to overthrow the government, and the fact that the regime did not allow a fait accompli does not necessarily mean you can't call this an insurgency. I certainly don't think the fact that the South sought to secede rather than overthrow the federal government in its entirety means there was no insurgency -- was/is there a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq/Turkey/Iran?

On the other hand, one might argue that an insurgency must be a movement from within a state, and that the War Between the States was exactly that -- a war between separate, sovereign groups of states, not an attempt to overthrow a state from within.

Is there an insurgency in Taiwan right now?
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2005, 17:02   #72
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
Your argument seems to be that because the South's attempt to secede initially was peaceful, and the North started the armed hostilities, there was no insurgency. I don't know if that matters. There certainly was an attempt to overthrow the government, and the fact that the regime did not allow a fait accompli does not necessarily mean you can't call this an insurgency. I certainly don't think the fact that the South sought to secede rather than overthrow the federal government in its entirety means there was no insurgency -- was/is there a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq/Turkey/Iran?

On the other hand, one might argue that an insurgency must be a movement from within a state, and that the War Between the States was exactly that -- a war between separate, sovereign groups of states, not an attempt to overthrow a state from within.

Is there an insurgency in Taiwan right now?
I never said that the North initiated armed hostilities. Pretty clearly, that was done by the South at Fort Sumter. I said that the North invaded the South.

IMHO, Taiwan is a sovereign state. Any attempt at annexation or invasion by the Red Chinese is an external threat and would be war. If an irregular force rose up within Taiwan to overthrow the government, that would be insurgency. If the Northern half of Taiwan wanted to secede and used their militia forces to try to do so, that would be civil war.

Define the Korean War.

The Vietnam conflict? As defined by the VC? As defined by the NVA? From the RVN viewpoint?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2005, 14:18   #73
Airbornelawyer
Moderator
 
Airbornelawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
I can find no reference of Confederate Major General James Patton Anderson studying or practicing law. He was, to all acounts I can find, a physician, a U.S. Marshal and a politician:

"James Patton Anderson Born in Franklin County, Tennessee, on February 16, 1822, Anderson grew up in Mississippi. Although he attended college briefly in southwest Pennsylvania, a family financial crisis forced him to withdraw before graduation. Called "Patton" by his associates, he began studying and practicing medicine. Later, he fought in the Mexican War, served in the Mississippi legislature, as a U.S. marshal for Washington Territory, and was elected to the U.S. Congress. After two years, he moved to Florida, set up a plantation near Monticello, and participated in the Florida state secession convention.
James Patton Anderson studied law at Montrose Law School in Frankfort, Kentucky and was admitted to the bar and practiced in Hernando, Mississippi from 1842 to 1846. Source is his US Congressional bio.

To "read law" or "study law" in 19th Century parlance is not just to study law as a field, it means to study law as a profession (to "read law" is British English usage). If you want to draw a fine line, admittance to the bar is the modern dividing line, but in the 19th century, the rules in some states were less clearly defined. But this is merely a minor quibble that only applies to two names. I would note, however, that I have worked over the years with quite a few lawyers who do not actually practice law, including for example military analyst David Isby.

As for Bagby, since the Confederacy did not have a system of brevet promotions like the Union, I would not credit Kirby Smith's appointment of Bagby to BG and I can understand why it was not recognized by Richmond. But his major general's appointment, though not officially recognized, was one in fact, and involved actual command. Given the Trans-Mississippi Department's isolation from Richmond, Gen. Smith's autonomy and the lateness in the war, the fact that Richmond did not give de jure recognition of his de facto status is not surprising, but is really only a quibble. You may dismiss if you so choose.

Alcorn you are welcome to dismiss too. His commission was not accepted by Richmond, but he remained a brigadier general of the state militia for the duration. So he may not formally have been a "Confederate general" but he was a general in the Confederacy, at least as far as his state was concerned.

In any event, none of this changes the essential facts: lawyers were more "overrepresented" in Confederate ranks than in Union ones. In both armies, though, the difference was not significant - both in the 30-40% range.

Further, you have not produced any evidence that lawyers were better or worse as generals (or officers or soldiers of any rank) than non-lawyers. A brief perusal of bios indicates that some Confederate lawyer-officers were good, some average, and some bad. Same goes for the Union. Same goes for non-lawyers.

You haven't even advanced a hypothesis as to why one would expect lawyers to be worse officers. Are they less decisive leaders, because they are tempermentally inclined to overanalyze things? Might many, especially the generals, been worse not so much because they were lawyers as because they were politicians, and owed their positions to patonage, not skill? Or is there some deep-rooted moral flaw in lawyers, something in their characters that draws them to the practice of law, or something the law does to them, that makes them bad men, and hence bad leaders of men?
Airbornelawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2005, 15:41   #74
Airbornelawyer
Moderator
 
Airbornelawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Due to the engineering degrees awarded at that point from the USMA, I would have expected a disproportionate number of engineers by civilian profession.
Remember that this was in the days before sewers and indoor plumbing and many other things. There were not that many jobs in engineering to be had. Canal building, mining, maybe railroads, would have employed a fair number, but not enough. Major highway, dam and bridge projects were yet to come.

Engineering only began to organize as a profession in mid-century. The American Society of Civil Engineers was founded in 1852. The American Institute of Architects in 1857. The American Institute of Mining Engineers followed in 1871, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1880 and the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in 1884. Of course, several of these predate the American Bar Association, founded in 1878.
Airbornelawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2005, 17:30   #75
pulque
Guerrilla
 
pulque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: between the desert and the sea
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
Oh, and one of the things I have learned from you gentlemen is that I do not need to fight my own battles. It is far better to win the battle without fighting, either through psyops or by convincing others to do it for me while I down a few cold ones.
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
pulque is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies