Posted on 01/20/2016 5:03:47 AM PST by Kaslin
I’ve always found it immensely amusing when lost cause losers seek the protection of the US Constitution in order to defend breaching it.
I’ve always found it immensely amusing when False Cause losers seek the protection of the US Constitution in order to defend breaching it.
OK PeeWee - in your dimwitted universe perhaps.
But yet you side with disHonest Abe's incorrect opinion concerning the secession of the Southern States. The biggest problem with you False Causers is your boundless hypocrisy.
I guess you forgot about the poster boy for your statement: disHonest Abe.
This is not the only time the good judge's opinions were confused & disoriented.
A normally brilliant lawyer, in this case Napolitano here buys into the pro-Confederate Big Lie, namely that Lincoln started Civil War to prevent Southern secession.
That is not just a pro-Confederate Big Lie, it is an unspeakably outrageous lie, which takes no great historical expertise to puncture.
In actual historical fact:
What did start Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, soon followed by a formal declaration of war on the United States and military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
All that happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
So, accusing Lincoln of starting Civil War is just like accusing President Roosevelt of attacking the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
It is an unspeakably outrageous Big Lie.
In other words, he's brilliant when you agree with him but when you disagree with him then he's confused and disoriented. The level of revisionism to which you've sunk is mind boggling.
hat did start Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops
The revisionist gymnastics that you False Causers have to go through to justify disHonest's Abe's illegal war is shameful. Have you ever actually read a detailed history or do you just go to the NEA's website for talking points?
No, when the good judge understands & agrees with the facts of history, then he's brilliant, but when he does not understand or acknowledge the real facts, then he's confused & disoriented, just like you are, FRiend.
cowboyway: "The revisionist gymnastics that you False Causers have to go through to justify disHonest's Abe's illegal war is shameful.
Have you ever actually read a detailed history or do you just go to the NEA's website for talking points?"
Of course, I have several books here covering this subject, including:
All are easily available at reasonable prices from Amazon.
And your outrageous claim that "Lincoln's war" was illegal is laughable in light of the fact that on May 6, 1861 -- before a single Confederate battle death -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, and sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
But any discussion of "illegality" ends long before that point, with repeated Confederate provocations for war, culminating in it's military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
So the real question is not why did Lincoln accept the Confederacy's war, but rather, why did Jefferson Davis & company rush so blindly & foolishly into it?
Wow. Just when I didn't think that your dung pile could get any higher......
Of course, I have several books here covering this subject
I'm sure the NEA would approve of your reading list.
And your outrageous claim that "Lincoln's war" was illegal is laughable in light of the fact that on May 6, 1861
The truth will set you free:
And, by that same logic, some have accused President Roosevelt of attacking the Japanese and launching WWII at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
How? Analogous to Lincoln, FDR was also warned that moving the US fleet to Pearl Harbor could provoke a Japanese attack, and yet Roosevelt did it anyway.
Is FDR therefore responsible for WWII?
No, the decision for starting war in 1941 belonged strictly to the Japanese, just as in 1861 it belonged to Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
I have not read Napolitano's book, doubtless it's brilliant in overall analysis, and possibly even misrepresented in your quotes here.
But regardless, the historical fact remains that Jefferson Davis made the foolish decision to start war against the United States.
Yes, Lincoln accepted the Confederacy's war, but certainly did not start it.
If the book is anything like the myopic mess at pokie’s link then it isn’t worth wasting time on.
Why don't you take that leap that most of you libtards take and compare the Confederacy with Nazi Germany.
and possibly even misrepresented in your quotes here.
There was a link in my post. (Unlike you, I don't copy from others and post here pretending that it's my own writing.) You can read the entire passage. You can buy the book. Ain't gonna change what I posted which is that honest people in lincoln's time and honest people today recognize that disHonest Abe was a tyrant and a war criminal.
You dung pile is growing to Biblical proportions.
Don’t you have a Bernie Sanders rally to attend?
Nah, I went to one to taunt the all the losers and saw you there sheering him on.
Thinking about your evening wear in that reply, were you?
The only real similarities are:
Other than those, no comparisons.
cowboyway: "Unlike you, I don't copy from others and post here pretending that it's my own writing"
Anything I quote has quote marks around it, and some indication of where it came from.
If you wish more details on anything, I'll be happy to provide them, just ask.
cowboyway: "Ain't gonna change what I posted which is that honest people in lincoln's time and honest people today recognize that disHonest Abe was a tyrant and a war criminal."
No, only dishonest Democrats, Dough-faces & Copperheads pretended such rubbish.
Everyone else well understood that it was Confederates who first provoked war, started war, formally declared war and sent military aid to pro-Confederates in Union states.
cowboyway: "You dung pile is growing to Biblical proportions."
You dung pile is growing to Biblical proportions.
I generally admire the good judge, and therefore tend to doubt that his views are being accurately presented here.
Napolitano's review of the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision seems to me highly unlikely to lead him to trash Lincoln or the Union cause.
So I suspect there's a problem with quotes out of context.
Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America
If I'm ever in the need for even more revisionism and lies than the crappola that you've already posted I'll let you know.
Do you own research, professor. You appear to have ample free time on your hands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.