Don't spin the Civil War

Washington Post ^ | 12.27.10 | E.J. DIONNE jR.

[trumandogz]

The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.

The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.

[Lee'sGhost]

What was his offense? (Please limit response to the reason for being banned.) ;-)

[cowboyway]

Lee’sGhost told me never to argue with a fool. That pretty much dismisses you from the picture.

In other words, you de facto capitulate by refusing to answer my posts exposing your lies.

Not very honorable, but a sleazy retreat is about all that can be expected from you and your comrades.

[cowboyway]

What was his offense? (Please limit response to the reason for being banned.) ;-)

Supporting gay rights.

[rockrr]

Wrong.

[rockrr]

Oh, and you’re wrong about that too (no surprise there).

[rustbucket]

Well you better let guys like James Madison and a dozen other signers of the Constitution know of your opinion since they voted and approved an identical bill to the 1787 Ordinance during the very 1st Congress under the Constitution in 1789.

Here is a discussion of the constitutionality of the Northwest Ordinance that holds that the Ordinance is not constitutional. Link.

lg, in response to your post above I checked my archive of old posts and didn't find much about a previous discussion on the NWO that I had been involved in, but I had archived the text of the above link on my computer.

[Lee'sGhost]

Well, it figures. You tend to support your own.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Abin Sur/Non-Sequitur] Congratulations, you're picking up on the coven's petty abuse tactics in record time.

Oh, I think he's had plenty of practice, in an earlier incarnation. Isn't that so, Non-Sequitur?

[lentulusgracchus]

Rustbucket, I looked at your linked article on the Northwest Territories, and while I don't recall it, the last two grafs substantially reproduce the argument that I recall being made by our FReeper discussants, at least the Southern ones.

Non-Sequitur and other posters on the other side were arguing from the Ordinance, much as Ditto does above, that Congress had the power to exclude slaveholders from United States Territories by statutes. Which of course was Abraham Lincoln's, the Free Soilers', and the Northern Whigs' argument as well.

[Ditto]

How do you know that that wasn't self flagellation? That fool could have been practicing some weird African ceremony for all you know.

Ya... you know I hadn't thought about that. I mean the guy could have been a member of some Antebellum S&M club. After all, we all know that slaves never got beat or whipped or punished in any way if they pissed their masters off. < /s >

Third picture: I assume that you approve of the ‘insurrection’ in this picture. Am I correct?

Just an illustration of what insurrection looks like. And an acknowledgment that if you treat people like dogs, they will put a serious hurt on you given the opportunity. A Slave Master could never sleep soundly.

BTW, are you fishing for a reparation check from me?

Hadn't thought of that either, but now that you mention it, hell yes. And don't be stingy about it.

After for putting up with all your myths, pretzel logic, historical ignorance, overblown sense of regional pride, constant ad hominem attacks, and now, totally bizarre rationalizations like self-flagiation, I think some compensation is in order. Make it cash.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You can still find his last post. Go read it yourself.

[Ditto]

Here is a discussion of the constitutionality of the Northwest Ordinance that holds that the Ordinance is not constitutional. Link.

Yep. I have seen it before. It's hosted on left wing atheist forum that seeks to twist the 1st Amendment into being anti-religous and without saying so, use many of Taney's Dred Scott arguments to do so. They are stretching beyond any credibility.

If you care, read Justice McLean's dissent in Dred Scott. He ridicules the notion that the NW Ordinance was unconstitutional.

[lentulusgracchus]

Hey, Lenny, speaking of substantiating your claim, did you ever tell us which Alfred Hitchcock movies .....

Hey, Bubba, the particular Hitchcock story I remember appeared on TV, and it was probably one of his Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes. I don't remember having seen many Hitchcock feature-length films (Psycho, The Birds, North by Northwest); if this one was a feature-length film, I don't recognize the title.

The story I remembered, and looked for, involved a young couple taking refuge in "any old port in a storm" in an ancient and decayed plantation-house out in the swamps, which in turn were infested with scary boogermen. White scary boogermen, of course. If they'd been black, that would have been racist, wouldn't it?

Take a look on IMDB.com under his filmography (TV); they list all the episodes there. In particular, look at Season 2 Episode 12, Season 4 Episode 4, and Season 5 Episode 13, and Season 5 Episode 15 for Hitchcock's use of Southern stereotypes.

He uses other stereotypes as well: London fog, London inspectors (both active and retired), returning veterans, Chicago and Brooklyn hoods, Western prospectors and miners, and a whole cast of villains-next-door. But where he portrays Southerners, they are almost always guilty parties, boogermen (or in the case of the first episode listed, boogerladies), and what have you. Whereas others may equally have been victims as victimizers.

Granted that Hitchcock made much more use of other cliche's and stereotypes (blonde women/"ice goddesses"), but he did use the sweaty Southern boogerman stereotype.

By the way, I'd call your attention to Season 5, Episode 12: it's the "Lamb Armistrand" classic, entitled "Specialty of the House". Very memorable.

[lentulusgracchus]

You aren't the teacher here, Poocherr. Get out from behind that desk and go clean the erasers like I told you.

[rustbucket]

Yep. I have seen it before. It's hosted on left wing atheist forum that seeks to twist the 1st Amendment into being anti-religous and without saying so, use many of Taney's Dred Scott arguments to do so. They are stretching beyond any credibility.

Sorry, but you have not addressed the arguments about constitutionality discussed in the article I linked to but are instead trying to damn them by calling that site "left wing atheist" seeking "to twist the 1st Amendment." Address the constitutionality issue and the court opinions mentioned, please.

Perhaps the link you provided does address those arguments, but I can't read your link because Jim and John are apparently still having problems with the FR database (the reason why the system has been down this afternoon and evening) where your link to an FR item is archived. I'll try your link tomorrow when the database might be back up.

[MikefromOhio]

The political polarization will be complete by 2012. We will be divided politically and regionally. IMO a good thing. Maybe then the sheeple will wake up to reality.

Unless you are going to be forcibly making people move, the "polarization" you're thinking about isn't going to happen.

[MikefromOhio]

What!?!

I agree.

You have a serious issue reading things in context, don't ya?

[MikefromOhio]

First picture: How do you know that that wasn't self flagellation? That fool could have been practicing some weird African ceremony for all you know.

And that's why you'll never be anything but an internet idiot.

Do you seriously believe any of the crap you spew? REally? "Some weird African ceremony"?? ARe you friggin HIGH???

[mac_truck]

I looked at your linked article on the Northwest Territories, and while I don't recall it, the last two grafs substantially reproduce the argument that I recall being made by our FReeper discussants, at least the Southern ones.

So the FR debate record has gone missing but the brief supporting your side of the debate is found. Isn't that kinda convenient LG?

First you invent a phony southern caricature and assign him a reoccurring spot in Alfred Hitchcock films, then you fabricate a Senate cloakroom railroad deal between Douglas and Davis, now an imagined debate on FR where upon, it was determined that NorthWest Ordinance was unconstitutional.

In each instance your opponent is left looking for something that doesn't actually exist.

I think we're beginning to see a pattern of practice emerging here pardner.

Lolz.

[rockrr]

And this is the reason that people shouldn’t listen to the half-backed scurrilous claims of a demented moron like pokie.

You should know better, but here you are, slandering and besmirching someone without a shred of evidence.

You owe that FReeper an apology, but I doubt that he will get one from the likes of you.