...you'd be better off bypassing the factual arguments, which obviously will not have an impact on these nutjobs, and simply ridicule these people. I mean it. Alinsky had that part right. You could go back and forth with these nutballs until Judgment Day, but they will simply ignore any facts you cite, or lie outright to refute them. It is a waste of time. However, if you denigrate and ridicule them, it gets them where they live. Leftists, above all else, need to feel superior. They need to feel like they are the smartest people in the world. Ridicule is the one thing they cannot tolerate. Debating them only feeds their egos. Ridicule deflates them.What I know for fact - having experienced it first hand far too many times to count - is that that is not exclusively the purvue of liberal moonbatville: it is all too apparent here at FreeRepublic. If not overtly (which is often the case), then through the use of diminutive epithets; as if such augments or strengthens one's argument. What ploy is being implemented through the derogatory or condescending perversion of one's screen-name?The nature of the ridicule that I recommend goes like this: "Wow - I can see from your pathetic post that you don't know a thing about the 20th century, or the world in general. Do you get all of your information from books with big, colored pictures in them? Maybe ones with flying superheroes or talking animals?" Whenever they cite a "fact", simply reply "LOL!! Off your meds again? Not everything the voices tell you is true!" You get the idea. And if you have the stomach for it, keep at it until they stop, but don't waste any time, energy, or frustration on these idiots. Just chuck these insults out there, and enjoy yourself until they self-destruct.
That being said, and nevertheless notwithstanding, I'll acquiesce to the notion that the Union was unethical in its failure to adhere to the extradition clause of the Constitution, i.e., Art. IV, sec. 2 (3rd clause); it however standing upon moral principles that transcend mere legality.
It's been said that that which is legal may not be moral. Moreover, it is an unequivocal Truth that the righteous purpose of government is to do good; for that purpose governments are instituted by God Himself.
It is true that my argument that the dissolution of of the Union - indivisible & with liberty & justice for all - is mere wordsmything (predicated upon untenable religious principles in the eyes of the harsh cold realities of black upon white as set forth in contract law). Therefor, Psa 37:27 has no bearing (nor basis) upon the matter. For the Confederate rebel-States wanted to be left alone in their liberty to perpetuate a depraved, detestable and contemptuous institution. Moreover, I'll acquiesce to the argument that the Conferated rebel-States were wholly within their sovereign rights to unilaterally secede from the Union of the several sovereign and independent States, albeit an absolutely immoral act in and of itself, i.e., the disolution of a more perfect Union - which has its foundations grounded in the grace of God. But pay no nevermind to me, in that what I refer to are a most eloquent hymn (America the Beautiful) and the Pledge of Allegiance, which ultimately are just so many words, not having any real substantive meaning apart from whatever the current and most popular demagogue makes them out to be.
That notwithstanding, whatever ethical basis upon which secession stands is eclipsed by the reprehensible institution upon which the Confederacy stood. Its been well said that one should stand for something or one will fall for anything; for that reason alone I admire the collossal struggle the citizens of Confederacy undertook. The purported objective of of a compact entered amenably between likeminded participants so as to thwart the all to real potential of a central government encroaching upon common, decent and civil liberty through tyranny, oppression and violation of unalienable rights of Man are most commendable, laudible and noble ideals.
But for whom are those ideals attributable? Is the negro to be included in such El Traviata opera? Whom is being oppressed by who? Frankly I see the conflict as being a revolt of libertarian ideals against the rational world; the greatest libertaria ideal is that of property rights - the epitomy of liberty above all others - it is a travesty of justice to argue that people can be property; herein lies the conundrum.
I fail to see any difference to the foregoing and any arbitrary region of the existing Union ruling that polygamist homosexual child-rape necrophiliac cannibalism is the law of the land. Should the Federal government encroach upon the liberty and freedom of a people who have so decided for themselves, then that encroachment is outside the bounds of the legally permissable compact between the States themselves - what after all is the Fed Gov - and seccession and violent as a viable option.
Its been said of diplomats that given an untenable and wholly unwinnable circumstance that they would nevertheless attempt to negotiate and diplomate in the clear faced evidence their evidence would unequivocally fail until the end of time. The reason being: that's what diplomat and negotiators do; a military resolution being merely a violent solution to a political question that is irreconcilable at the polls (or one the powers-that-be are unwilling to have decided at the polls). Its far too maudlin to have political change be decided peacably at the polls.
The North is accused by the Confederate-rebels of being the 'pushers' of the person-as-property drug. The unpalatable truth to the Confederate-rebel South is that Congress outlawed that market within 30 years of the foundation of the 1st American republic; their mandate in doing so was fully within the purvue of their regulatory ability of the commerce clause.
It is very much to my chagrin that within a decade the Marshal court issued several opinions that IMHO was the harbinger of things to come; the 'War of Northern Aggression' merely being the actual burial of the foundational republic. It could be argued that the 2ndnd republic ended w/WWII. The beginning of the end and the end of the beginning are functionally, practically immaterial except for pragmatic issues.
Where are we now? At the beginning of the end of the 3rd republic? Or are we actually witnessing the dawn of the 4th Reich?
ping
You should have stopped right there. To justify the Northern Invasion with further ruminations makes you sound like a fascist.