Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
"Soon", for your purposes, is 1500 words or more. I see.
Yeah, let's buzz past all the tax and alienation of revenues issues and well-drawn comparisons between what Whig policy was doing with the expenditures of taxes raised off Southern and Western payors, and spending on improvements in the seaboard cities of the Northeast.
Let's ditch that because we want to hear about SLAVERY.
You're droning like a Marxist duckspeaker, did you realize it?
Blow off every issue, every item -- and go to the propaganda point you want and pound, pound, pound it.
You and Dalton Trumbo.
Do you want to have a conversation, or just stand on a corner with a bullhorn recruiting for your cadres?
Yes I did, and I shoved it down your throat.
Cough.
Cough harder.
You are. You had to ask? That's the first sign.
Not even close. Your statement is a famous fallacy recognized by first-year logic students the world over.
"My statement is true" is a witting falsehood. Fallacies are never true; that's why they're called "fallacies", from fallax, "misleading".
A lie is a lie is a lie.
Splash rosewater on it, and sprinkles, and sell a steaming pile of it to the proverbial "10,000 Frenchmen", and it's still a lie.
YOU are missing the point. Secession was legal. I am quite sure that most of the leaders knew that there was a RISK. That doesn’t mean it was a foregone conclusion. Lincoln on the other hand WANTED WAR. Do YOUR homework, and you will see that.
I can show you parts of the TEXAS Articles of Secession that go into more than slavery.......and what is your point?
Slavery was perfectly legal in 1861.
There was a rebellion, a armed open and unsuccessful opposition to the established government. But mass murder? Now your drifting into stupid again.
Unilateral secession was not.
That made it illegal, and therefore murder. Mass murder.
But go ahead, sprinkle your perfume of "policy" and your stink of gloating and triumphalism over it, maybe people won't notice.
You'll pay for that someday, btw. Nobody down here has forgotten.
There's no other kind of "secession", and it was, and is, legal. That which is not prohibited to the States by their own Act of ratification, remains theirs.
And screw your coming around later and saying "well, it really means this because that paints my wagon." Who the hell are you?
I was saving that in case he really wanted to beat his head against a brick wall while davening over his McPherson mantra, "It was all about slaveryyyyy...."
When someone provokes the police into shooting him it's referred to as 'suicide by police'. That's pretty much what the South did. By starting a war over Sumter they guaranteed their own demise.
All your dancing around and playing with words won't cover up the fact that Lincoln came to office with a war policy and killed nearly 1,000,000 of his fellows, to get his way about politics. That puts him in the same league as the Viscontis, the Borgias, and Peter the Great. Never mind the body count -- dead people don't matter, only my politics, my fame.
I do believe that your grasp on reality is rapidly slipping.
All your dancing around and playing with words won't cover up the fact that Lincoln came to office with a war policy and killed nearly 1,000,000 of his fellows, to get his way about politics. That puts him in the same league as the Viscontis, the Borgias, and Peter the Great. Never mind the body count -- dead people don't matter, only my politics, my fame.
Southron scholarship at it's best. Can quotes from "Gods and Generals" or "Outlaw Josey Wales" be far behind?
There, fixed it.
–noun
Once the heroic 11 seceded, the central (Federal) authority was the Confederate Govt. not D.C.
There was no defiance to Richmond or the Confederate Government.
There was no rebelling at all, seperating is not rebelling.
–noun
I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the war, but I could not. The North was mad and blind, would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came.
-- Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
Fixed it so it was wrong. But where's the surprise in that?
Their secession was illegal, so their actions were rebellious by definition.
There was no defiance to Richmond or the Confederate Government.
The junta in Richmond was not a legitimate government.
There was no rebelling at all, seperating is not rebelling.
Illegal attempts at separating is.
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.