Posted on 04/02/2021 9:04:55 AM PDT by gattaca
re: “Dinesh is a go-to guy if you want faked history cut and fit to serve present day partisan politics.”
I like the way he cites various publications and historical works to support his position.
Unlike you, who cites ________ (nada) ?????
“C’mon man! Cite a reference!”
925
Maryland had slaves but stayed in the Union. Did it fight to preserve slavery? No. Try again Reb and try answering the question I put you.
“As do you.”
If the implied equivalency was intended as a compliment it was fully ineffective.
It doesn’t even reach grim satisfaction.
“Maryland had slaves but stayed in the Union. Did it fight to preserve slavery? No.”
Did it fight to end slavery?
At one point you implied the Union fought to end slavery.
In Maryland, most were Union sympathizers. There was a small amount of people connected to slave trade around Baltimore, and the farmers of top grade tobacco on the eastern and shore area....they were the primary Confederate supporters.
Lincoln realized the issue and quickly sent troops in to ensure no rebellion.
My family lived in Western Md, and mostly rock solid Union out in the mountain areas. There were a few Confederate sympathizers who joined Rebel Cav Raiders in the area.
1 hour to the East is Gettysburg, Antietam...a little further to the East and south is Harpers Ferry, WV.
There were also incursions and small raids across the Potomac to hit critical areas like the Canal, which allowed ease of huge food and ammo shipments.
Also some individual theft of food missions into the Western farmland areas, out western Md., where they felt safer to strike for food without retaliation.
While Marylanders had sympathies for the South it's citizens were more pro-Union. And don't twist my words Reb. I said the primary reason for the Union's fight was to preserve the Union. It was also committed to ending slavery. Now stop the s**t and answer the question I asked you or are you too cowardly to do so?
Did you ever check any of the citations to see if they actually support his conclusions?
"Unlike you, who cites ________ (nada) ?????"
An internet post isn't a book.
But in order to provide something along that line here's Victor Davis Hanson critiquing D'Souza's thinking. You won't like it:
However bad free factory labor might become (largely after the Civil War), it had advantages that slavery denied to slaves -- freedom of movement, wages and the possibility of capital accumulation, freedom from physical punishment -- that were not inconsiderable.
Right, Democrats opposed the US Constitution since Day One in 1787, and still oppose it today.
In 1860 their opposition first became violent, and is now again approaching those levels.
The difference is that Democrats have figured out why they lost in 1865 and are determined not to repeat it -- hence open borders and millions of soon-to-be legal aliens amongst us.
DoodleDawg: "Really? LBJ. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton. Both Bush's. I'd say they've gotten their revenge and then some."
DiogenesLamp: "Bush Senior was from Connecticut, and he clearly produced a lot of Connecticut influence on Bush the lesser."
The fact is the South solidly supported such Democrat Progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and even Illinois Democrat Governor Adlai Stevenson, twice!
So long as they believed they were the beneficiaries of Leftist Big Government largess, Southerners were happy to support it.
It was only after they figured out somebody else was getting the Big Government money, then they began to vote against it.
Of course, we're delighted Southerners have slowly become more conservative & Republican, but let's not pretend "it was always thus".
Don't be ridiculous -- Confederates never denied demanding Fort Sumter's immediate surrender and firing the first shots when Maj. Anderson refused.
Sure, if you search the history books for earlier shots fired, you can find them, but Fort Sumter's surrender was the first actual battle of the Civil War.
"Otherwise, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
Basically, Nateman has it exactly right, but not every Democrat is 100% Democratic and not every Republican 100% Republican.
Setting aside the Trail of Tears, ("Otherwise...") I count Andrew Jackson as more Republican than Democrat.
Since Day One in 1787 Federalists / Whigs / Republicans are the writers, ratifiers and defenders of the Constitution.
Democrats were the anti-Federalists and since then only ever defend the Constitution when it can be weaponized via "strict-construction" against their opponents.
Otherwise, once themselves in power, Democrats ignore the Constitution.
So, to the degree that, say, an Andrew Jackson or Grover Cleveland actually followed the Constitution, they were not true Democrats, but more like conservative Republicans.
Southern Democrats had a great hand in that, voting solidly for "Progressives" from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (twice!) and, outside the Deep South, even that Texas Democrat Pedernales Cowpoke, Lyndon Johnson, in 1964.
Thanks for a great link to a 2007 critique by VDH of D'Souza's War on Terror opinions.
D'Souza comes out of it sounding very confused & disoriented, and since he apparently attacked VDH directly in print, I can't sympathize with D'Souza on this.
Victor Davis Hanson is my definition of "conservative common sense."
If D'Souza finds himself opposed to Hansen, then D'Souza needs to rethink his own opinions.
However, dare I say this?
2007 was a vastly more innocent age than today.
In 2007 we might still have reasonable disagreements with "liberals" and might still find common ground on some issues.
And I suspect it was D'Souza's search for that "common ground" which lead him into such utter confusion & disorientation.
But even further, it would take a scholar of the caliber of Victor Davis Hanson to compare D'Souza's 2007 opinions to those of, let's say, Donald Trump today.
Remember, in this link VDH is defending the Bush administration's War on Terror, a war that Donald Trump has roundly condemned -- at least in part.
So, are Trump's opinions closer to George W. Bush's in 2007 or to Dinesh D'Souza's?
I don't know, but with the benefit of 14 years hindsight, and with the Left's descent into berserker madness, perhaps D'Souza's opinions today are not quite as alien as they were in Hansen's 2007 National Review piece.
Bottom line: as of today, D'Souza is far more on our side than on that of our "Woke", "Progressive" Leftist political opponents.
More important, facts are still facts, and the Democrats' war against the US Constitution is today approaching levels not seen since 1861.
D'Souza's facts & opinions on that are right on point: "it's all the Democrats' fault", period.
WokeJoeK
Happy Easter
The War for Slavers' States Rights.
the OlLine Rebel: "If they wanted to leave, let them leave.
Why “union” at the point of a gun?"
In his 1861 First Inaugural, Pres. Lincoln offered Confederates, in effect, "peaceful coexistence".
Confederates refused, started war on April 12 and then formally declared war on May 6, 1861.
That's why.
eyedigress: "The South wanted out."
Not "the South", only the ruling slavocracy in seven cotton states.
FLT-bird: "I think war for Southern Independence more fitting.
After all, they were simply leaving an oppressive regime just like their fathers and grandfathers had done."
That's a total lie!
The allegedly "oppressive regime" was actually Southern Democrat rule over Washington, DC, from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861.
What Southern Democrats then could not tolerate was future prospects of having to live under the "oppression" they themselves had imposed for the past 60 years!
In 1860 Democrats went as berserk from the election of Republican Lincoln as they have since 2016's election of Republican Trump.
It was just Democrats doing what Democrats by their natures do.
Our Founders never recognized an unlimited "right of Independence", except under two very specific conditions:
Except when, having declared your secession, you then start (April 12) and formally declare (May 6) war against the United States.
The Confederacy declared war on May 6, 1861.
Lincoln declared Confederates in insurrection on April 19 and Congress agreed with Lincoln's naming it a rebellion on July 4, 1861.
SCOTUS's supremely Crazy Roger Taney had a lot of problems with Lincoln, but after the war in Texas v. White agreed the war was rebellion and secession did not stand.
No one ever said Sumter wasn’t the first battle, you idiot. Stop putting false statements out there.
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.