TKI67

Advanced Member
That is a crafty conclusion. As long as you mutter the magic words "I hereby resign my commission" first, the oath is no longer applicable. Sounds like a great loophole with other useful applications!
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
That is a crafty conclusion. As long as you mutter the magic words "I hereby resign my commission" first, the oath is no longer applicable. Sounds like a great loophole with other useful applications!
The times were unprecedented, though, adding enormous complications for so many!
 

vpkozel

Super Member
That is a crafty conclusion. As long as you mutter the magic words "I hereby resign my commission" first, the oath is no longer applicable. Sounds like a great loophole with other useful applications!
well, the side that you are proposing is that you can never break an oath once taken, no matter what the situation may be. Which of course makes many of our Founders traitors because they had been in or fought with the Royal Army.

And what happens if your president gives you an order you think is unconstitutional? Shooting prisoners for instance. Or say locking up American citizens of Japanese decent without cause?
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
well, the side that you are proposing is that you can never break an oath once taken, no matter what the situation may be. Which of course makes many of our Founders traitors because they had been in or fought with the Royal Army.

And what happens if your president gives you an order you think is unconstitutional? Shooting prisoners for instance. Or say locking up American citizens of Japanese decent without cause?
Good points. I have raised this issue re: obedience to an oath/president/commander when that obedience would be complicit in a clear violation of law or the Constitution multiple times now. Look forward to a response...
 

TKI67

Advanced Member
well, the side that you are proposing is that you can never break an oath once taken, no matter what the situation may be. Which of course makes many of our Founders traitors because they had been in or fought with the Royal Army.

And what happens if your president gives you an order you think is unconstitutional? Shooting prisoners for instance. Or say locking up American citizens of Japanese decent without cause?
I did not think i took that position. I thought i said it was a crafty conclusion. This thread is so needlessly acrimonious that once i hit "post" I am taking AAAC off my list of sites i enjoy.
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
I did not think i took that position. I thought i said it was a crafty conclusion. This thread is so needlessly acrimonious that once i hit "post" I am taking AAAC off my list of sites i enjoy.
I think the word crafty has the connotation of being deceitful/filled with guile. I didn't mind it, but I can see how some would view this as accusing Lee of being deceitful. Additionally, that some have repeatedly referred to Lee as a "traitor"is bound to cause acrimony. Whether that acrimony is "needless" or not I cannot say, but stinging attacks on venerated objects/people will no doubt lead to the very acrimony presumably we would wish to avoid.

Imagine if I posted a list of all of Abraham Lincoln's constitutional violations, his ipso facto violation of his presidential oath, and the historical/logical inaccuracies of his first inaugural address. Or if I pointed out the dishonesty, constitutional violations, and violation of his presidential oath committed by Franklin Roosevelt. You don't think that would engender acrimony on the part of some AAAC members? Even if I supported all of the contentions above with a bevy of factual data, I would still be vilified!

I'll add that, in light of the "oath obedience" topic that became so prominent in this thread, I purposely sought to see if we would be willing to explore Mr. Lincoln's violations of his oath of office and all of his unconstitutional actions. Unsurprisingly, no responses were offered. Seems like only some sacred cows can be skewered, but not others.

For the record, I try to operate on a non-partisan basis on these historical issues - as alluded to above, I'll point out the violations of Lincoln and FDR (among many others) equally, because I am far more concerned with truth than political partisanship.
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
Left me a bit puzzled also, except the phrase "needlessly acrimonious", to which I would add "overly wordy" and "condescending" (not your reply).
Or, perhaps we could say that the thread required detail and depth to counter inaccuracies and lack of precision.

Maybe you could point out the condescension that I can’t find, Big T? I won’t find you condescending for doing so!
 

Shaver

Suspended
Or, perhaps we could say that the thread required detail and depth to counter inaccuracies and lack of precision.

Maybe you could point out the condescension that I can’t find, Big T? I won’t find you condescending for doing so!
Oh, that was probably me. Something of a Leitmotif I'm afraid. One especially pronounced when interacting with the obstinately ignorant.
 

Big T

Senior Member
Or, perhaps we could say that the thread required detail and depth to counter inaccuracies and lack of precision.

Maybe you could point out the condescension that I can’t find, Big T? I won’t find you condescending for doing so!


Writing as if we are children in need of a lecture, is condescending, no matter how many words or citations used.
 

Mike Petrik

Honors Member
As Tiger well knows I do not agree with his Civil War thesis, even if do think he is correct in regards to Lee's conduct. I also thought that his exchange with Eagle was somewhat encumbered by unfair expectations on his part. That said, I do think he has acted in good faith throughout this thread. IMO his detailed and precise responses do not do much so reveal condescension as superior knowledge, and apparently for some of us that is a bit pride-wounding.
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
Writing as if we are children in need of a lecture, is condescending, no matter how many words or citations used.
So encouraging to see that some distort historical and modern events equally.

Some posters wrote inaccurate/incendiary things. When I challenged this, I was asked to support my assertions, even though the posters refused to support their assertions. I did so - thoroughly, logically, and accurately, as the importance of the topic required it. Now, I'm accused of giving those posters "lectures" and being "condescending."

Not sure who needs a lecture, but it certainly is obvious that some need a heck of a lot more knowledge about the topics that they choose to write about, and the targets they choose to inveigh against.
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
As Tiger well knows I do not agree with his Civil War thesis, even if do think he is correct in regards to Lee's conduct. I also thought that his exchange with Eagle was somewhat encumbered by unfair expectations on his part. That said, I do think he has acted in good faith throughout this thread. IMO his detailed and precise responses do not do much so reveal condescension as superior knowledge, and apparently for some of us that is a bit pride-wounding.
Thank you, Mike, for your kindness and wisdom.
 

Big T

Senior Member
Condescending opinions, nothing more, nothing less, made obvious by posting/passing judgements "that some need a heck of a lot more knowledge....".
 

Tiger

Advanced Member
Oh, that was probably me. Something of a Leitmotif I'm afraid. One especially pronounced when interacting with the obstinately ignorant.
Don't think so, Shaver - no doubt I'm the one with the bull's eye on my back! But I do hope that it's not a continuing pattern on AAAC, or we'll be relegated to discussing the value of navy trousers and not much else!
 
Last edited:
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.