Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
Some do, some don't, but your need for absolutes seems to drive your posts.
You said that blacks weren't universally against it. That implies it wasn't so bad, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. People aren't universally against abortion, yet no greater holocost against the innocent was ever carried out as the abortion industry in modern-day America. I stated a fact... you drew a conclusion.
Im not. (putting words in your mouth)
You've stated that I:
1. Said slavery was OK.
2. Bashed America.
3. claimed Lincoln only fought for money.
4. blacks were better off as slaves.
None of these can be found in any of my posts.
You went on a rant about things being shredded or whatever
Hamilton's vision for America was shredded... For this, if anything, I love our country more. A claim that dislike for Hamiltonian nationalism is "America bashing" (to use familiar words you can relate to) is beyond the pail, tinfoil hat material.
You added power, which is the same as money
Today moreso than in 1860. Lincoln was not 'rich,' yet proved himself as powerful as any man in his time.
By only telling one side of the story, implications were made.
If you think so, then by all means, tell the other side of the story; just don't lie about what I said thinking that it's helping you.
I don't think I'm out of line in saying that slavery was a bad thing for blacks,
Slavery was a bad thing for blacks, as it was for whites... as it was for Southerners... as it was for Yankees... as it was for immigrants... as it was for (need I continue)??? Your obsession with it as the single cause of secession, however, is factually incorrect; not to mention beyond the pale, tinfoil hat material.
So you also admit to misleading statements. But still it is a wild accusation that you didn't have a link on hand to show what you were saying wasn't some crazy delusion.
A post of a man who was proud of his ancestor. But it was not an isolated incident:
But out of the norm. You said he proves that yankees don't have the facts and that slavery wasn't the cause of secession. One soldier fighting for little dictators proves nothing. There are nuts in every crowd and this soldier had no sense of heritage.
Well duh. If blacks, slave and free, fought for the Confederacy that speaks volumes about the true causes of the war
See, that's where you're delusional. His presence doesn't wipe out what was officially declared in the Declarations. Some will support tyranny, even when it's not in their best interest or the interest of their people.
- to many it was that arrogant yankees attempted to dictate their attitudes and beliefs on the country, and failed to abide by the terms of their agreement.
LOL Yeah, we felt that people shouldn't own other people in a free country, we're funny that way.
But for the sake of argument, slavery was already legal. The South had no need to secede to continue it
Then why did they officially declare that that was their reason? Because they knew the new Republican Party was going to wipe out slavery one way or the other. That's why the Republican Party was formed.
- there were not enough states against it to pass an amendment, and Lincoln himself signed and amendment that would have made slavery permanent.
There was no amendment passed during Lincoln's time in the presidency. You're making up things again. lol
Please, I wrote that modern warfare was gentlemanly per accepted international laws & treaties. The Lieber Code attempted to legalize the attack and destruction of civilian property. See the decision by Taney cited previously which recognizes that civilian property is not a legimate target of war.
What??? War has never been "gentlemanly". It wasn't gentlemanly before 1865 and it wasn't after. More delusion. Like I said, look at what the most civilized people in trhe world, the British, did to the Highlanders. I would say southerners got treated better than any vanquished people up to that time.
Hundreds of thousands of homes and farms were leveled, entire cities were destroyed, thousands of women were raped,...
You're going to have to cite cases of these rapes. I've seen one case reported.
...property stolen, numerous slaves murdered, civilian livestock slaughtered for no reason, the women & children of Roswell enslaved and sent north, nunneries and churches looted and destroyed, and entire populations were left to starve to death or to freeze.
War is hell, it's how wars are won. If the South didn't want war, they shouldn't have fired on Sumter and stole federal property, and they should've followed the constitution in their attempts to secede.
That you delight in such men, or consider their actions trivial speaks volumes.
I delight in men that can win wars saving the lives in the long run. Sherman's actions saved hundreds of thousands, just as Truman's did.
So? The court still had ruled the taking/destruction of civilian property illegal.
Doesn't apply to rebellions. Are you against the police taking a gun from a robber when they apprehend him?
Does Lincoln need Heavy-duty or regular? It was what he said.
The Republican Party was formed to halt the advance of slavery. If Lincoln's only motivation was money, he would've stayed a Whig or became a Democrat. You guys have engulfed your lifes into 140 years in the past to the point of posting the same thing day after day for up to six years now that you've lost touch with reality and you can't discern truth. Like I said, you used to be one of the sane ones, but now you throw stuff out there that is just as delusional as some of the crazys from 4 years ago.
They call Sherman a war criminal, then admit that he wouldn't even execute one person, if this event happened at all.
I can read what was said at the time and southerners did indeed secede for slavery. It's why they hated Lincoln so and thay said so in the Declarations.
No, it doesn't. People aren't universally against abortion, yet no greater holocost against the innocent was ever carried out as the abortion industry in modern-day America. I stated a fact... you drew a conclusion.
If the Massachusettes legislatured commissioned a Declaration to declare their secession for the perpetuity of abortion, would you say that anyone who pledged to fight for that cause wasn't a supporter of abortion, but for something someone might make up 140 years down the road?
Im not. (putting words in your mouth) You've stated that I: 1. Said slavery was OK.
I said you implied.
2. Bashed America.
You did.
3. claimed Lincoln only fought for money.
You did.
4. blacks were better off as slaves.
I said you implied it.
None of these can be found in any of my posts.
Your implications are certainly there.
Hamilton's vision for America was shredded... For this, if anything, I love our country more. A claim that dislike for Hamiltonian nationalism is "America bashing" (to use familiar words you can relate to) is beyond the pail, tinfoil hat material.
You guys hate people for the silliest of reasons, it's hard to know who you are for and who you are against.
Today moreso than in 1860. Lincoln was not 'rich,' yet proved himself as powerful as any man in his time.
If all he wanted was money and power, he would've stayed a Whig or became a Democrat. You're delusional in saying that money (which is power) was his only motivation.
If you think so, then by all means, tell the other side of the story; just don't lie about what I said thinking that it's helping you.
I didn't lie. I said you have been implying things, and you have.
Slavery was a bad thing for blacks, as it was for whites... as it was for Southerners... as it was for Yankees... as it was for immigrants... as it was for (need I continue)??? Your obsession with it as the single cause of secession, however, is factually incorrect; not to mention beyond the pale, tinfoil hat material.
The Declarations state that slavery was the cause for secession. It's the official record by the actual entities that drove secession. You just can't dismiss their words and revise history.
If the Massachusettes legislatured commissioned a Declaration to declare their secession for the perpetuity of abortion, would you say that anyone who pledged to fight for that cause wasn't a supporter of abortion, but for something someone might make up 140 years down the road?
Not necessarily, especially if many people in Mass professed pro-life sentiment and still chose to pick up a rifle to defend their home. Of course, the argument hinges on the absurd notion that the declarations mention only slavery, which is false.
implied, implied, implied, did so, did so, did so.
Then post where I did. American bashing? Cite it. Until then, you haven't the right.
You guys hate people for the silliest of reasons
Now I hate people? Boy, you sure can take something and run with it, no?
It was about oil. We couldn't let Saddam control the world's oil supply. Oil was a good reason. But that doesn't apply unless you look to the ones that took us to war. Bush said it was about jobs. jobs=oil. The entities that took the South to secession said it was about slavery.
It's not the best analogy, since more than 5% of Americans who fought drove cars at the onset of our invasion.
Secession was for slavery but the war was fought for other reasons. For the North it was for preservation of the union. For most confederate soldiers, it was because they were defending their states. That makes the entities that pushed for secession extremely guilty in my eyes since very few fought for the reason that they drew the country into.
Not necessarily, especially if many people in Mass professed pro-life sentiment and still chose to pick up a rifle to defend their home.
No, I said those who specifically cited abortion as their cause, just as the south cited slavery as their cause for secession.
Of course, the argument hinges on the absurd notion that the declarations mention only slavery, which is false.
The Declarations state the slavery was the driving cause.
Then post where I did. American bashing? Cite it. Until then, you haven't the right.
If not your Hamilton quote, then post #76, where you want Northeasterners to not exist.
Now I hate people? Boy, you sure can take something and run with it, no?
Post #76 looks clear to me.
Nonsense. Hung - 'To fasten from above with no support from below; suspend'. Hanged - 'To execute by suspending by the neck'. The justice was hung by the neck - not killed.
Hundreds of thousands? In your day job do you do crowd estimates for the government for things like the Million Man March?
Excuse me. I forget that we live in the backward south massa. Surely in 1860-1865 there were only a few homes in Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi etc. Forgive me of having the audacity of not worshiping the actions of Sherman [*spit*] for destroying our property, taking their jewelry, gold and silverware, for raping the women, killing their livestock, burning their home and barns, and then leaving them to starve. Thank you for reminding me of just how grateful we should be.
Again, you make wild claims that you can't back up. You're delusional.
There was no amendment passed during Lincoln's time in the presidency. You're making up things again. lol
Try again, I never said it passed. The Corwin Amendment ['No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.'] was supported by Lincoln as being permanent:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
I have a number of contacts in law enforcement from both a former career and through a current career. Some of these folks are part of an anti-terror joint task (fed and NYPD and CID). They are taught recognition of the syndrome as part of their training. We have discussed both cases. They believe that the syndrome is/was evident with Hearst (the classic textbook case) and the rash of post-911 conversions.
Post #76 is a continuance of moonman's joke; saying that he was probably the last conservative to leave the Northeast.
Everybody got it but you. If you feel stupid, it's because you should.
I didn't say you did. When I said "your Hamilton quote", I meant your quote where you mentioned Hamilton.
Post #76 is a continuance of moonman's joke; saying that he was probably the last conservative to leave the Northeast.
His post was no joke. He hates northeasterners.
Everybody got it but you. If you feel stupid, it's because you should.
There's nothing to get. His post was one of hate.
Tell you what... I'm going to allow you to be the smart one since it is so important to you, and I don't have the time to play your games.
If you say it must be so...then it must be so. The Patty Hearst case and the conversions after 9/11 are cases of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Better?
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.