Why America lost the "Civil War"

http://calltodecision.com/Civil%20War.html ^ | October 30, 2002 | Nat G. Rudulph

[wardaddy]

southerners who actually read

Thanks....this discussion is over. I hope you enjoy your feeeling of superiority.....moral and otherwise. Asshole.

[wardaddy]

I hear you are anti-Jewish as well. I'm not angry with you. I'm angry I didn't know who you were before I wasted a good 30 minutes of my rainy Sunday afternnon attempting a decent dialogue with someone who gave the pretense of rationality.

I've no time for South bashers or Jew (particularly Israel) haters. I know who you are btw...I should have known you'd be back. Funny, I thought you were more entertaining in your previous incarnations.

[wardaddy]

Ok Thad ...you've humoured me...all is forgiven.

But you know better than to proslytize to me.

[rdb3]

Tell it like it is w.diddy. Right on.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.

[bjs1779]

Our resident nutcase, who I will not name, freepmailed me after I reported his abusing of a pro South poster where he said the Southerner would be happy about the DC snipings.

You mean the one who compares Southerners to Nazis?

[breakem]

Errors in your response. The Nazi's came into power because people were hurting. A mass revolt would have stopped them, Look at the fall of communism tens of thousands in the street. If people are not responsible for their government, who is?

If the Cuban people and army got mad enough at Fidel he would fall.

[breakem]

Have to look at situation is my point. Since we had two bombs, I would have dropped the first one off the coast and the second on a population center.

[Aurelius]

"Errors in your response."

I can't, for the life of me, see how your posted comment indicates any errors in my response. On the contrary, the examples that you cite seem to support my contention.

"If people are not responsible for their government, who is?"

What about the government itself?

[Aurelius]

"Ah, it's nice to see that nothing has changed. Two posts and it's back to name calling. I'm surprised it took you that long."

And you, as usual change the subject to avoid the issue.

Referring to you as Illogical-One is hardly name calling when you choose to call yourself Non-Sequitur, and you were being illogical. The issue is whether Toomey or McPherson is right. I told you what McPherson said; I was right in that. McPherson may be wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong in quoting him unless I also asserted that he is right, which I didn't do (I would assume that he probably is right, but I admit to not knowing). I very much would prefer that these discussions could be carried out with civility, but you and Walt won't let that be the case. You, at least, used to be capable of civility; I don't know what happened.

At least you have responded to me twice without mentioning the name of Jefferson Davis; that at least is progress.

[stainlessbanner]

But surely the suspension of the writ itself, matters more than who did it.

I guess it doesn't matter to you that one person made the decision vs. representatives of the people?

[sheltonmac]

"But surely we can work to restore the Republic within the framework established by the Founders."

Perhaps, but no one today seems to understand that framework. What do you do when everyone thinks the President has the power to wage war? What do you do when everyone thinks the Supreme Court has the authority to enact legislation? What do you do when everyone thinks the federal government has control over the inner workings of the states?

[sheltonmac]

"But surely we can work to restore the Republic within the framework established by the Founders."

Perhaps, but no one today seems to understand that framework. What do you do when everyone thinks the President has the power to wage war? What do you do when everyone thinks the Supreme Court has the authority to enact legislation? What do you do when everyone thinks the federal government has control over the inner workings of the states?

[Aurelius]

"That's not how George Washington saw it"

This may come as a shock to you Walt, but George Washington was not God; he was not infallible; neither he nor Abraham Lincoln were members of the Holy Trinity, which already had 3 members without them.

[x]

I guess it doesn't matter to you that one person made the decision vs. representatives of the people?

From what I've seen, Lincoln was acting in an interim capacity when Congress was out of session. When it was in session it passed laws that confirmed his suspension of habeas corpus. If Congress had disagreed with Lincoln and undone his action, its decision would surely have prevailed over his, and rightly so, though they were all duly-elected "representatives of the people." Just how representative of the people the Confederate Congress or Jefferson Davis was is also open to question. In any event, from the point of view of those who were detained, the fact of the suspension of the writ was more important than who initiated it. The most significant drawback in the article that was posted is that it ignores that the Confederacy applied the same tactics of control or oppression that it attacks Lincoln and the Unionists for employing.

[Ditto]

As for the Radical Republicans, their name referred to them being radically against slavery. Their bad reputation in history books is due to the fact that most history book are written by Democrats.

Ditto that. The term "radical" was applied to them because they not only saw slavery as wrong (most moderates did as well) but because they also believed that blacks were the equal of whites and deserved all the protections under the constitution that whites recieved. That was a very radical idea in the mid 19th century.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"That's not how George Washington saw it"

This may come as a shock to you Walt, but George Washington was not God; he was not infallible; neither he nor Abraham Lincoln were members of the Holy Trinity, which already had 3 members without them.

I know you don't respect ol' GW, since his words don't advance your non-fact based neo-reb rant, but that's the way it is.

But, hey. How do you figure that GW's image got on the Great Seal of the so-called CSA? Why him and not, oh, John Brown?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

But surely the suspension of the writ itself, matters more than who did it.

I guess it doesn't matter to you that one person made the decision vs. representatives of the people?

Having too many chiefs and not enough indians is what cost the rebels the war. But you can't see that as even being a problem, which is why you hew to the non-fact based neo-reb rant.

Walt