Quite true. But it is also what an honest person does when confronted by the kind of thing you do.
The best antidote is to continually post the truth of the matter and to put as much sunshine on the issue as possible.
Laudable sentiment. Now when are you going to quit posting McPherson's Marxian "vanguard liberation" slurs?
For every misrepresentation you make, I will shine the big bright light of truth on it.
Oh, yeah? Then why is your spotlight bright red?
Dan Rather understands the concept, now.
He a friend of yours?
It is one thing to differ on policy or interpretation, and debate the relative merits. It is another thing to engage in character assassination. You are getting to be as bad as some of the droolers.
I'm calling foul on your technique and I will bag you on it every time, just as I promised. You want to make the Civil War about one issue, a moral issue, and wash everything that Lincoln and his party did on that basis. It is you who are oversimplifying, you who are working a factious agenda.
Such as? I'm not familiar with the term.
"You want to make the Civil War about one issue, a moral issue, and wash everything that Lincoln and his party did on that basis. It is you who are oversimplifying, you who are working a factious agenda."
You, again, mischaracterize my position. I have little or nothing with regard to Lincoln on this thread. I have commented on the obvious southern motivation for attempting secession. It was insurrectionist, unilateral secession that led to war. It was protecting and expanding slavery that led to secession.
I notice you have not commented on the Rhett's editorial yet (#234)? It goes directly to the point. Is the truth too much for you to swallow?
I'll let the southerners speak for themselves on the issue. Consider this from the New Orleans Bee, December 14, 1860:
"[The chief obstacle to reconciliation] is the absolute impossibility of revolutionizing Northern opinion in relation to slavery. Without a change of heart, radical and thorough, all guarantees which might be offered are not worth the paper on which they would be inscribed. As long as slavery is looked upon by the North with abhorrence; as long as the South is regarded as a mere slave-breeding and slave-driving community; as long as false and pernicious theories are cherished respecting the inherent equality and rights of every human being, there can be no satisfactory political union between the two sections."
"[F]alse and pernicious theories [about] the inherent equality ... of every human being"??? Sounds like the editors of the Bee don't believe Jefferson when he stated that "All men are created equal."
And of course, the gist of the editorial is that the Northerners must come around to the southern point of view on slavery or there can be no Union.
Slavery - Secession - Linkage.