Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
My problem with the term "American Nationalist" is the fact that we are a nation of 50 Sovereign States. To me, a nationalist denies that fact. I am an American, but I am a citizen of the United STATES of America, and a citizen of the Sovereign State of Texas FIRST.
I understand that good people sometimes espouse bad causes and have no particular hatred for any but the political leadership of the South. Ordinary Southerners did not produce that war. It came after long efforts by that leadership to secede. That didn't suddenly arise with Lincoln's election but used that event as an excuse to attack US installations.
Southern political leadership was a poor as any ruling class I am aware of throughout history. And the costs it imposed on the South raises my ire against them. As I have said many times I am from the South and most of my family resides there.
Treason is not necessary a moral term but a political one and is defined in the Constitution. Those who were coerced into the CSA military or drafted are not the object of my scorn nor the ordinary soldier necessarily.
My apology.
I think we all sometimes are guilty of going the "ad hominem" road, but I believe that it is important that we all step back and realize that there were no absolutes on either side of the conflict. Both sides are guilty of not trying hard enough to find a peaceful solution. Everyone of us needs to try harder to be more understanding of both sides of the issue. I know that as a reenactor,and a historian, I feel I must know both sides of the issue to be objective.
Accepted gratefully, Sir.... :)
Sorry but I do not buy the moral equivalence argument. There is nothing that can justify attacking US property and responding to those attacks are not morally equivalent with attacking.
This was not a matter of not trying hard enough to avoid war since the Southern political class had been working mightly to bring about secession no matter the cost. While almost no one in the North wanted a war. Maybe a tiny number of fanatical abolitionists did.
Lincoln came in the middle of these schemes and conspiracies and, in NO way caused the war.
Lincoln could have removed the garrison at Ft. Sumter, which would have relieved tensions, and he could have received the Commissioners that were sent by the Confederate Government. Instead,he chose to attempt to re-supply, which he knew full well, would provoke the South, which makes him guilty in every way. The war was caused by much more than that issue, regardless.
The South could have allowed the status quo to be continued by letting Lincoln resupply Sumter with food, and the Confederate Commissioners could have come to Washington willing to negotiate anything including an end to secssion. Instead, Davis bombarded for fort into surrender and the so-called peace commissioners were there to deliver an ultimatum only, knowing that such actions would force the North to fight the war they wanted. That makes the rebels guilty in every way. IMHO, of course.
Yeah. It means you don't know the meaning of excommunication and have a shaky understanding of the Constitution.
Patricia Ireland is not Vice-President, nor was she there when the U.S. was created. Alexander Stephens was for the confederacy. Who better than he would know what the confederacy was founded on?
Actually, the "radical" abolitionists such as Garrison and Phillips were opposed to war and did not support Lincoln (at least in the early years of the war.) They had argued for years in favor of "Free State" secession from the Slave States, and had no use for the Constitution which they saw as a compact with evil since it acknowledged slavery to be legal. (Garrison actually burned it in public as a protest.)
The "one issue" people, radical abolitionists in the North and Fire Eaters in the South, just like today's Cindy Sheean and her Code Pink buddies, didn't give a damn about Union. They wanted it "their way" and they wanted it now and to hell with everyone else!
They were also united in their hatred, disdain for Abe.
If at some point in the future, a Spanish speaking majority in the State of Texas decides they want to secede and become part of Mexico, what will you be then?
virtually ALL of TRADITIONAL American & European scholarship was on the side of the south or neutral, until the rise of the LEFTIST/socialist REVISIONISTS, who now control all the major history departments in the country. ANY deviation from their LEFTIST agenda (which you FOOLishly PARROT) is NOT allowed.
and you are clueLESS about the Irish, as you are about everything else.
laughing AT you!
free dixie,sw
"JSU&TI" is a BIGOT, a HATER & a FOOL.
that's why.
free dixie,sw
his war & his MILLION needLESS deaths.
NOBODY else even comes close to his guilt.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Which is my point to JSUATI....
BOTH sides are equally guilty.
BOTH could have taken steps to prevent war.
A resident alien....or possibly a citizen of LOUISIANA! :)
I noticed that, conveniently, you had somehow forgotten to lay any of the blame on the Southern side. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part.
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.