Replies

If I was like you, I could say that you are not fit to be here with your hatred of the country, but I think you do love much about the country. I don’t hate the south, though I think the past insurrection launched by the slave power in the distant past was incorrect, not justified, and illegal.

If you can’t win an election, you can’t win a war. Losing an election has bad consequences. Losing a war has worse consequences. Mass murder in an attempt to win an unjustified insurrection is perhaps the worst result possible as it invites, and partially justifies mass murder by the authority that suppresses the insurrection.

You hate freedom.

If you can’t win an election, you can’t win a war.

This is fundamentally untrue.

The moocher class, and the other assorted liberal groups are incapable of fighting a war.

Their power comes from how much everyone respects the vote.

I would suggest the right has far more physical power and could easily stand up and make the left's life miserable enough to leave us alone

It is the endless cowardice of the right which is our Achilles's heel.

If I was like you, I could say that you are not fit to be here with your hatred of the country, but I think you do love much about the country. I don’t hate the south, though I think the past insurrection launched by the slave power in the distant past was incorrect, not justified, and illegal.

Really when you think about it, what is legal is determined by the winner and the ability to use force to impose its/their will. I would have sympathized and fought for the South if I was around then, I think they were right and the North was wrong, but the South did make some mistakes that cost them. First, they fired the first shots, bad move, like any schoolyard fight or even any war (with few exceptions), the first ones to shoot are seen as the bad guys. So the North had on their side already, "well, he started it," as they would explain it to the principal. Fort Sumter was the first boo-boo. However, there is always chance of recovery. If you do that, you have to be able to cash the checks you write. The South did a fairly good job at first but they lacked the industry the North had and most trade from the outside was blocked. They needed factories to make the munitions they needed and/or get them from elsewhere, both were lacking. Third, you need recognition from other, preferably, major nations. If the South was able to get the UK or the French on their side, especially the former, the North would have been toast and might have to come to the bargaining table. The South lacked that, so that was strike three.

Then in today's world, you have two additional equalizers. First, nukes. If the Civil War was anytime past 1950 and the South was able to score or make some nukes then it would have been game over, the North would have had to come to the table. Asymetrical Warfare is the other, make to too costly for the victor to hold onto you. Then again, that type of warfare is much easier with knowledge of 20th and 21st century science and the will to fight.

So in a way, might makes right, the South tried and lost so it is seen as illegal.

Elections can be rigged, it’s a little harder to rig a war.

The colonists had no legal way to remove King George III but they ended his power over them.