Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
To imply that a state asks permission to leave means there are consequences if they don't [ask]. Having consequences makes the remaining states belligerents, no other way to spin that.
Why do I bother....
If they choose to violate the Constitution while leaving then I guess that would be the result. Their choice.
Why do I bother....
Excellent question. Your inane view that the Constitution is a club for the leaving states to beat the remaining states with doesn't get any more logical with your continued repeating.
I guess by following that logic then in April of 1861, 9 million people spread across 11 states collectively went insane, manifested by their illogical actions? Hmmm, never thought of that. If you are inferring that then I'll make an appointment Monday with a shrink.
Not really. If Einstein said that insanity was doing the same thing over again and expecting different results then you'd be the crazy one in this picture. What remained of the original rebellion participants knew better than to try it again.
And it was fewer than 6 million. You're forgetting that more than one-third of your population had no say in the matter.
If you are inferring that then I'll make an appointment Monday with a shrink.
I suspect that in your case medical help is indeed warranted.
We agree then that the South was not the belligerent party in Civil War; when Lincoln refused the offers of peace, the North became the belligerent party.
Exactly the opposite. There was no offer of peace, just a demand for surrender. The belligerent party was the South, and the initiation of the conflict their bombardment of Sumter.
You need the shrink....
I am trying to understand that bully attitude. I do hate that thought.
It's not hard to do, just think about how the average southerner felt every time one of their slaves ran away in the middle of the night with their other properties.....
My ancestors were from Roanoke and had never owned slaves, so I am not relating to that. What I do see could be an attempt at displaying the ugly side of the Federal Boot Licker i.e. somebody who would take one in the backside as long as the implement was shrouded in the Constitution.
What is funny in all of this, is that the neo-yankee actually thinks the current Federal Govt. actually has the stones to do what Lincoln did. If 11 states were to secede, the Federal Govt. would do nothing. Actually, the DU crowd would be the biggest bunch of Copperheads that ever existed. I guess you would have to "preserve" on your own. LOL. How does it feel to have the DU on your side? again LOL.
Perhaps if you could understand for one second the other side of the coin you could make a better argument.
Believing that Lincoln wanted to crush the south and enslave all of it’s inhabitants for all time, puts you at a disadvantage especially when you have nothing to back those motives from Lincoln himself.
I truly believe that Lincoln waned to end slavery through debate in congress over an amendment to define slavery once and for all under our constitution, and part of that debate would have covered the particular institution of indentured servant, which rarely gets discussed because quite honestly southerners cannot win against the arguments against forced servitude.
You can only demonize the motives of the US government rather than look at why your cause was wrong to begin with.
If the original 11 states seceeded again, there would be other states that would be more than happy to join us. Even if they didn’t we still have much more economic and industrial stroke than we did back then. A huge percentage of the military has been Southern since WWII as well.
IOW, we’ll kick their asses this time! Bring it on!
What is funny in all of this, is that the neo-yankee actually thinks the current Federal Govt. actually has the stones to do what Lincoln did. If 11 states were to secede, the Federal Govt. would do nothing. Actually, the DU crowd would be the biggest bunch of Copperheads that ever existed. I guess you would have to "preserve" on your own. LOL. How does it feel to have the DU on your side? again LOL.
I don't suppose I have to explain it to you, do I?
The bottom line is I want my state(VA) out of this abysmal Union. Since it is rapidly becoming a blue state time is running out for VA. That being the reality, I still want to get away from you and your ilk, and I am not alone. 2009 is not 1861. IMHO the North is majority Copperhead at this point. None of the pollsters will dare ever ask the question so I have nothing to back it up, just a hunch. You are the minority, wanting to take up arms to “preserve” the Union. Poppycock. It is not understandable now, nor can I understand why it happened then. Your a bully. Simple. The majority in the North are not now. Look around do you see any fight in the Yankee now?
Is that some jarhead thing, flashing 12:00?
Don't be so quick to equate secession with war, it's only means war if THEY SAY IT means war. To me, secession is a peaceful process until the Federalist steps in, they make it about war not the secessionist...
The bottom line is I want my state(VA) out of this abysmal Union.
Then let me ask you a question, will you force West Virginians to join your state in secession?
If you truly know your state's history, would you demand that West Virginia be forcibly returned to Virgina when it secedes?
I wouldn't bring up what happened when WV was formed, it strengthens my case and weakens yours. What is flashing 12:00?
Is that some jarhead thing, flashing 12:00?
No , it means even a broke clock is right twice a day.....
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.