Posted on 05/16/2015 5:12:04 AM PDT by OttawaFreeper
The Southern motivation is completely irrelevant. They didn't invade someone else. Stop trying to use that childish "tu quoque" argument. (They were bad too.)
Combatting rebellion is a natural response for any country, be it the U.S. or the U.K.
Ah, but the United Kingdom never advanced it as a fundamental right and principle. They were not hypocrites. They were consistent with their beliefs.
On the other hand, the United States was explicitly founded on the premise that people had a right to leave a government of which they didn't approve. It says so right there in the founding document.
I have said countless times that they never should have attacked Ft. Sumpter, but the Northern response was as if the Wife slaps a man, and he breaks her face, and then holds her down and makes her lick crap up off the floor.
Yes, the wife shouldn't have slapped the Husband, but the Husband absolutely shouldn't have beaten the wife nearly to death.
“I was not disagreeing with your basic concept, simply pointing out that the association of these gangs with The West is not really accurate.”
In the years following the Civil War, that WAS the West - the settled West. Push past that, and “thar be Injuns”: The Fetterman Massacre in 1868(?), and even Custer’s Last Stand was in 1876.
99.9% of the time would be more accurate.
The Southern States had a right to leave, and the Northern states had no right to invade and oppress them.
You're half right. The southern states did (and do) have a right to leave. But not the way they attempted. I realize that you will never get this through your thick skull but this fact has been settled - the disagreement came to blows and one war and a couple of SCOTUS decisions later it is confirmed - unilateral secession is expressly illegal.
The Northern States successfully made slaves of the Southern ones.
Poppycock. Another idiotically hyperbolic and foolish comment. Why am I not surprised?
You see, it's okay because the whip is in his hand.
You must be in a lot of anguish because I heard that stupid is painful. In order to accept the viability of such an ignorant statement one would have to believe that 1) I wield some sort of physical or metaphoric whip that I use against others (damn - wouldn't that come in handy!), and 2) that I would be indifferent to its employment against family and friends who live in the south. Hold on a tick -I'll ask them.......nope, they said no whips, no chains. BTW: They asked me why I'm wasting my time on an imbecile and I told them because it amuses me.
Oh, I see some other painfully stupid posts from DiogenesLamp - I had best read them before I refill my coffee cup ;')
Actually, inquiring as to southern motivation is entirely relevant since it was the south who instigated, initiated, and waged war within their own country.
See, I didn't have to go far to find a painfully stupid idea from dimbulb. This analogy is so inapt that it had to come from the fevered brain-bucket of a....dimbulb.
Oh, and it is Sumter - you can look it up ;')
But you also say that the South was duped, tricked, and even hornswoggled into the attack so how can any you apply any blame to them? In your world they were completely innocent. All blame for everything lies with the North and the North alone.
...but the Northern response was as if the Wife slaps a man, and he breaks her face, and then holds her down and makes her lick crap up off the floor.
A more accurate analogy would be that wife leaving the husband without discussion. She helped run up the family debt but walked away from any responsibility for it. She took every bit of community property she could get her hands on without any thought of compensation. And when the husband tried to retain possession of some of the community property she then fired a gun at him. And in your world the husband is entirely to blame for it.
Yes, the wife shouldn't have slapped the Husband, but the Husband absolutely shouldn't have beaten the wife nearly to death.
I suggest that once again your analogy is flawed and it would be more accurate to say that the wife fired the first shot at the husband and you're saying that the husband has no right to self defense.
No he wasn't.
He campaigned on his opposition to slavery.
He opposed slavery and thought it wrong, but he did not call for the eradication of slavery by the Federal government. He campaigned in 1860 promising to stop the expansion of slavery to the territories, not for the end of slavery.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln
Springfield, Illinois
December 22, 1860
For your own eye only
Hon. A. H. Stephens-
My dear Sir
Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
The South would be in no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.
Yours very truly
A. LINCOLN
In other words, “safe, rare, and legal.” Lincoln was an early, pre-modern Democrat.
That’s the problem when you stare directly into the sun for prolonged periods - you see spots in everything you look at. You may want to see an optometrist for that...
You have some sort of severe mental issues if you can get that out of his words.
“You have some sort of severe mental issues if you can get that out of his words.”
Well, let’s see. You quote Lincoln as writing:
-”there is no cause for such fears” - That is safe.
-”ought to be restricted” - That is rare.
-”in no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of
Washington.” - That is legal.
For someone who is all about citing the Declaration of Independence, you're certainly quick to tell people who are being systematically excluded from having a voice in their government that they're out of luck. Maybe black citizens should have invoked self-evident truths, declared themselves to be a different country, and started shooting. Because that would have been a better way to resolve the problem than a federal voting rights act.
Black votes for Nixon more than doubled from Goldwater's election of 1964. It went from 6% to 15%.
Half what they were before 1964. Let me guess. Media's fault.
Right or wrong, slavery was a part of the founding of the United States, and later, the Confederate States. I am uncomfortable with it, but the Declaration of Independence was written to defend, among other things, the peculiar institution. You do know that, don't you?
Can you show us what part of the DoI was written to defend slavery?
Sure.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amonst us.”
King George was encouraging slave rebellions. This outraged the colonists from the 13 colonies. They wanted independence to put a stop to it (the rebellions).
But in 1964 we’re not talking about slaves, are we? We’re talking about citizens who are being systematically excluded from any voice in their government. You know, sorta like the founders complained about in the Declaration. What recourse would you suggest to them?
Would you agree with your Confederate brethren of 1861 that the Declaration of Independence applied only to white men and its guarantees for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness did not apply to free blacks?
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.