Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj
Just wondering what people might have to say about this.
Both would say they tried to preserve their union. Both employed military might to do so and killed lots of their own citizens.
ML/NJ
Spoken as a means to cover up the fact that you gave no facts.
The grandfather of the democrat party Progressive movement was aligned with the Confederate democrats who lost their cause to do away with the Constitution.
Wilson himself supported the terrorist wing of the Confederates (the KKK) and also was the first President to denounce the Founders of this nation.
Lost Causers here at FR can argue this point but eventually they will be completely exposed as to the facts.
It has been this continual anti-Constitution push by first the Confederates and now the Progressives that has been the battle for any true conservative to fight against.
It amazes me that any Lost Causer could try to claim that the Confederate democrats were aligned with the Founders considering that they wanted to do away with the Constitution. They wanted to secede from it by whim of their political power over a state.
I guess then they would go blissfully onward and the United States would be no more?
Yes go ahead spare yourself. Your calling me ignorant is exactly the only point you wanted to make anyway. Your post was pointless.
No, spoken as someone who tires of dealing with the invincibly ignorant, you in particular.
"The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply ignores any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."
So just another repeat of a post that says nothing by you. “You are ignorant.” That is your response.
You fit in well with the mindset that disregards the rule of law and just resorts to corruption and crime.
The Confederate democrats wanted to disregard the rule of law and failed. The Progressive democrats want to do the same by other means.
You just want to sit back and call others ignorant. Well good for you. I guess that you would feel better living in some other country other then the United States being you are so upset over it not being defeated by the KKK democrats of the Confederacy.
Actually it something for you to reflect upon and not me.
I would say that Muamar Qaddafi and Abraham Lincoln were opposites.
While Qaddafi fights to preserve the same type of government that the Confederate democrats sought, one that enshrined slavery, one that disregarded the rule of law and was ruled by the whim of those with power....
Lincoln on the other hand sought to preserve a true democratic republic whereas the rule of law was respected and all were created equal as intended by our Founders.
Linoln was by no means perfect and was thrust into a position of great challenges but he was a great man and a great President of this nation for his courage facing a traitorous group of partisan rebels who sought to do away with the Constitution that he had sworn to protect.
No, not at all. I’m quite experienced at conducting logical debates and I know better than to waste time with someone who doesn’t. The points in post 120 still stand. You failed to address them and that’s sufficient for me.
The points in post 120? What points?
You simply imply that the Progreesive movement as a political ideology was not confined to only democrats but also had republican support.
Even today though the Progressve movement gets republican support. So what point are you making.
It is well known ttoday and from the beginning that the Progressive movcement is championed by the democrat party.
You have never addressed the fact that Wilson also a democrat (just as the Confederates were democrats) also championed their terrorist wing (the KKK) and also historically was endorsed by the Confederate’s People’s party.
Wilson was not anti-Confederate by a long shot. He was not of the party of Lincoln and he was supportive of the Confederates. You have given no facts otherwise at all.
‘some of our worst Amendments’
It is the 13th that really gets to you guys.
‘Slavery was not started by Confederates, no, the wonderful Middle Eastern Muslims take that honor.’
Never heard of the Roman Empire the Alexandrian Empire, the Persian, Assyrian, Chinese, Japanese, or Egyptian Empires, all of which had slaves, along with most other countries in history. The Muslims had a lot to do with the rise of Black African slavery of course.
How about the claims made in reply 57 and 81? Are those as well documented as your claim is?
I wonder if you've ever read the Confederate Constitution. It is nearly identical to the one formulated by Madison and the Boys, except that it explicitly protected the "rights" of slaveholders, as I recall.
ML/NJ
I am aware of this (quite rare) phenomenon. Largely limited to LA, I believe, where the color line was not as distinct an issue as elsewhere in America.
I am unaware of any black units accepted into the regular CSA. I think all were volunteer units accepted (at best) into the state’s Home Guard.
The Georgia congresscritter I referenced in an earlier post was quoted by Foote as saying, “If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong.”
As it turned out, they would and it was.
BTW, how do you explain the fact that the CSA refused to recognize captured black Union soldiers as being soldiers, but instead returned them to slavery? And that the CSA initially declared white Union officers leading black troops would also be viewed not as soldiers, but as pirates or bandits to be executed immediately on capture? (They gave up the latter idea due to the expressed determination of the Union to “execute man for man” of captured Confederate officers.)
As you no doubt know, this refusal of the CSA to accept black soldiers AS soldiers was what led directly to the breakdown of the prisoner exchange system and the greatest suffering among prisoners both North and South.
I am unaware of any group organized at the state level prior to the 19th century that did not have slavery as one of its institutions. Some, such as Rome and Sparta, were economically based on slavery, as was the American South.
If nothing else, in the vast majority of human societies the status of women has differed little from slavery.
Exactly backwards historically.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries it was, among educated men at least, accepted nearly universally throughout the South that slavery was evil and must ultimately be gotten rid of.
By the 1850s this had completely turned around and slavery was (almost) universally accepted as a positive good that should not only be preserved but expanded. In fact, the newly elected veep of the CSA made this the main point of his most famous bit of rhetoric, the famous Cornerstone Speech. In it he explained why Jefferson, Washington and all those earlier southerners who had believed slavery to be immoral were wrong. Human inequality, in its ultimate form - slavery, was to the the Cornerstone of the CSA, rejecting and replacing the USA's Cornerstone of human equality expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
If you accept, as Lincoln did and I do, the DOI as the best expression of what it means to be an American, the Cornerstone Speech proclaimed a declaration of war by the CSA on the very concept of America.
Stephens' speech was widely plauded throughout the South. In fact, I have never come across a single expression of disagreement with its basic themes in any contemporary southern document. IOW, he expressed the conventional wisdom of his society.
Well, which one?
Well, which one?
You said: "It would seem you've ignored the little issue of the firing on Ft. Sumter. That's what initiated the war, beyond the secession of the southern states, that is."
The idea that a Confederate garrison firing on Ft. Sumter initiating the war is pure fiction that presents well to the uninformed, and gives the believable, although incorrect, excuse for the Lincoln war initiation.
That is media hype from 1861 to inflame northern draftees, and you still fall for it 150 years later.
Who fired in Charleston was not the determinant of war, as was true of many other events of 1860-1861..
War did not follow after South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860.
War did not follow after Major Anderson removed his troops from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and turned UNION guns on the city.
War did not follow after the Union garrison fired on Florida state troops in Barrancas Barracks in Pensacola Bay, late at night on the eighth of January (the day before the Star of the West would be fired on at Charleston).
War did not follow the next day when the Star of the West, rented by the Federal government to carry troops into Charleston Harbor for purposes of conflict, was fired upon and driven off the harbor.
War did not follow during the next three months while the seceded states reclaimed their property.
There are all sorts of examples throughout history of skirmishes and fire fights that did not bring all out war.
Specifically, in Charleston the Confederate garrison did not have the power to bring war. It had the power to defend the harbor, which is what it did.
War did not follow after the Confederate garrison repelled the Union fleet attempting to enter the harbor by reducing Ft. Sumter.
It was only after Lincoln called up the state militias, ordered the blockade of Southern ports, and prepared to send Union troops into Virginia that war began. The United States Supreme Court formally determined this event as the beginning of the war.
Um, what were the southern states doing during this same time, as far as raising militias for the confederacy?
Are you insinuating that that was a cause for Lincoln to initiate the invasions of Sumter and Pensacola, call up troops, and declare a blockade? That is truly farfetched.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262624/confederate-cornerstone-richard-brookhiser#more
You make a good point, but I'll take recourse to the observation that men defend most violently, not the things they know to be true, but those they fear may be false. Lincoln believed that the Negro race was inferior to the white race, but as he said in response to Steven Douglas, “In the right to the bread, which she has by her own hand earned, [the Negress] it the equal of me, of Judge Douglas, of any man.” Secession was the death throes of a moribund system.
BWAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA!
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.