Bump.
Posted on 07/07/2012 4:51:17 AM PDT by raulgomez05
Aging rocker and reality TV personality Ted Nugent is emerging, even ahead of Donald Trump, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s most embarrassing public supporter.
Nugent is at it again, reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act by writing in the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times that America would have been better off had the South won the Civil War.
A full Nugent rant, which might be subtitled “Robe Rage”:
“The bottom line is that Chief Justice Roberts’ traitor vote will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes and put almost 15 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devised by man: our out-of-control federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.com ...
If the North’s reason for the Civil War was to end slavery, why did Lincoln fire Fremont and Hunter?
Lots of people talked about returning them to Africa including Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee. Were you aware that Lincoln was in favor of voluntary emigration but Jefferson favored deportation?
The North and Lincoln could have not had war had they eliminated slavery as did England; by reimbursing the owners for their property and freeing the slaves. No, the Northerners and Lincoln didn’t wish to do that because they preferred to beat down the South and forever take away the political power that they possessed. It was about power. Lincoln didn’t give a tinker’s damn about the slaves and neither did his necrophiliac Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. One can read Lincoln’s speeches prior to the war and easily see his beliefs. My ancestors fought for the Union...they were from a Tennessee slave owning family that had roots with the American Revolution and the First Continental Congress. They fought for the Union and not for the slaves they possessed.
Slavery would have been abolished whatever the outcome of the civil war.
bttt
Taxes... You're only looking at the one issue. That's NOT it - look at the taxes.
And, no, I can't spell.
If the south had won, Jeff Davis would have finished his term and he could not run for a second. If the south had won—Robert E. Lee would have been elected President of the CSA. He would have freed the slaves just as he did with his own plantation before the war. There would have been no Reconstruction—no KKK—No Jim Crow—Blacks would have found a place in the south. That’s my take—Slavery was doomed—
The North’s major goal was to keep the Union together. As such, they would have been more than happy to do this without war but, the South pushed the issue by trying to expand slavery into the territories. This expansion was too much for the North to swallow which in turn caused the South to leave the union because of the pressure brought on them. The goal of keeping the union together was then only possible for the north via war. So, true the war was not about ending slavery but, that issue was the one causing all the problems.
As for the South, starting from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 right up through 1865, the entire purpose for the south was not only to maintain slavery but, to expand it. Furthermore, when the Union troops left the South following President Grants term, keeping blacks down was sort of a southern goal for another 80 years or so.
I’m not familiar with the South ever agreeing to let their slaves be purchased from them as a way to end slavery. Can you cite a reference?
How so? All the states agreed to allowing the practice of slavery when the US Constitution was ratified. If the terms of that agreement need to change, then it needs to be done by the process of amendment. The idea that a general public agreement that something is wrong enumerates a power of the national govenment to fix it is dead nuts wrong, and needs to be stomped on.
IMHO
Taxation was certainly a bone of contention between the slave states and the northern states. But never once did it rise to the level of any valid “injury or oppression”.
You’ll recall that the south held dominance in both Congress and the presidency throughout most of our nations early (pre-WBTS) history. They had - and exercised - legal recourse for taxes that they felt excessive or unfair.
The issue of slavery does not explain the reasons for my ancestors fighting for the south, as none owned slaves. You wouldn't understand. Of course slavery was evil and wrong. EVERYONE in the south knew that blacks just weren't ready for freedom and self sustenance in 1860. History has shown that to be true, Most former slaves STAYED RIGHT WHERE THEY WERE UPON emancipation, nothing really changed except they became share croppers instead of slaves. If the owners were SOOOOOOOOOO evil do you think they would stay on the plantation post-bellum? YOU ARE JUST AN IGNORANT mASSHOLE and I don't know why I even bother with a POS Yankee f-up. Take your reconstructed history and shove it up your tail pipe.
Bump.
What are you talking about? I live in the South. I try not to make judgements about people based on where they’re from, that’s just plain ignorant.
The history of southern democrats' racism following the civil war is also a great shame that we'd all like to forget about.Not to put too fine a point on it, but it needed saying...
Also, Nugent made the commennt in the context of the 10th amendment. If you will recall, the issue of state's rights was just a wee bit important to the southern secessionists.
No, your ancestors were probably just as excitable and easily buffaloed as you.
From Abraham ( the colonizer ) Lincoln:
“Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while we suffer from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.”
These “what if” questions really cannot be answered. What we do know is that people react violently to economic threats against their pocketbook. We have numerous examples from history.
The US was heading toward civil war anyway. It’s settled. We can only work to undo the damage. Furthermore the expansion of federal power really occurred in the 20th century and mainly under Roosevelt and then Johnson.
So what you're saying is that the incentive for ditching slavery was more due to economics rather than a moral incentive of respecting another human being?
I certainly hope the South's moral character isn't judged by this type of "matter of fact" approach to argumentation.
When are you going to explain why your conservative state manged to only allow Romney and Paul on the primary ballot? According to you , you “suthenuhs” are all so conservative and “other stuff” but then only manage to put a couple of RINOs on the ballot, this is just plain embarrassing.
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.