Copperheads, Then and Now - The Democratic legacy of undermining war efforts.

National Review Online ^ | March 19, 2007 | Mackubin Thomas Owens

[Ditto]

LOL. After you bet something of value on DiLorenzos scholarship.

[stand watie]

DiLorenzo is a scholar. too bad you are anything BUT.

laughing AT you, BOOB!

free dixie,sw

[eleni121]

Looks good. Bump for later read.

[ProudCopperhead]

(South should give thanka to Lincoln)

Just like the Jews should give thanks to Hitler.

[ProudCopperhead]

(South should give thanka to Lincoln)

Just like the Jews should give thanks to Hitler.

[stand watie]

rotflmRao!

VERY TRUE!

free dixie,sw

[Niteranger68]

"LOL. After you bet something of value on DiLorenzos scholarship."

Why should I bet anything? You're the one who claimed "If you think DiLorenzo's radical Libertarian propaganda is an accurate picture of the real Lincoln, then you would probably buy Michael Moore's propaganda as an accurate description of the real George Bush." A simple review of my previous posts would have cleared that up for you. But I'm more than willing to let you continue to be wrong. As far as Thomas DiLorenzo, I don't care what you do or don't think about him. My feeling about Lincoln and the Union existed well before this book was released in 2002.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Copperheads were unwittingly much closer to being right than today's anti-war crowd.

How so?

[Non-Sequitur]

laughing AT you, DUMMY.

laughing AT you, BOOB!

My, my, my, aren't we in a good mood today? Whatsamatter? Rabies shot expire?

[stand watie]

to ALL: all of the members of "the DAMNyankee coven of lunatics,HATERS, nitwits, FOOLS, half-wits, BIGOTS, etc" are KNOWN to be DUMB-bunnies, with the exception of "Non-Sequitur", The Minister of DAMNyankee PROPAGANDA.

"Non-Sequiter" knows better.he just CHOOSES not to DO better.

to N-S: don't you get HUMILIATED by the antics & STUPIDITY of the others on "your team"??? (i've often felt sorry for you, as you seem to feel that you have to defend their BIGOTRY & MEAN-spirited IGNORANCE.)

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

to N-S: don't you get HUMILIATED by the antics & STUPIDITY of the others on "your team"??? (i've often felt sorry for you, as you seem to feel that you have to defend their BIGOTRY & MEAN-spirited IGNORANCE.)

Well....no. If your side isn't embarassed by you and your comments then I see no need to cringe at any made by anyone on mine.

Copperheads on the side of freedom? ROTFLMAO. They were on the side of the rebels, who were fighting to ensure that about a third of their population never saw freedom.

[Niteranger68]

How so?

Well, do you think Lincoln was a champion of small government and states rights?

[Ditto]

My feeling about Lincoln and the Union existed well before this book was released in 2002.

Based upon what?

[Niteranger68]

Based upon what?

If you are looking for one magic reason, I don't have one. Maybe growing up in the deep south and being naturally skeptical of history is part of it. Or maybe I just don't buy Lincoln's argument that our country was venerable to attack from foreign entities because we were divided. But honestly, is there any good reason I should have to qualify my opinion?

[SunkenCiv]

:')

[Ditto]

Or maybe I just don't buy Lincoln's argument that our country was venerable to attack from foreign entities because we were divided.

I have read a lot of history of the Civil War and I don't ever recall Lincoln making that argument. In fact, a number of years earlier, he made just the opposite point that the US need not fear a foreign invasion and if we were ever to fall, it would be from within.

But honestly, is there any good reason I should have to qualify my opinion?

Well, I suppose if you are operating on 'liberal logic' just 'feelings' would suffice. But in a conservative forum where we tend to vigorously debate issues, it's more or less standard to be able to back your opinion with some elements of logic based upon fact.

This generally isn't a 'touchy - feely' bunch around here.

[Niteranger68]

Well, I suppose if you are operating on 'liberal logic' just 'feelings' would suffice. But in a conservative forum where we tend to vigorously debate issues, it's more or less standard to be able to back your opinion with some elements of logic based upon fact. This generally isn't a 'touchy - feely' bunch around here.

Did somebody really important die and make you arbiter of all opinions? Seriously, I made a statement (not to you) that the Copperheads were unwittingly closer to right than today's anti-war movement and pasted a copy of The Real Lincoln for effect. You made comments about the author (see #25) and suggested that I would believe Michael Moore's description of President Bush. Based on that, I don't really see how you are in a position to preach "logic based upon fact" without committing a few fallacies in the process. We apparently don't share the same view of Lincoln and the Civil War....learn to live with it.

[Ditto]

So I take it that you have no idea why you think the Copperheads were right and Lincoln was bad. You just sort of think that.

Thanks.

[Niteranger68]

So I take it that you have no idea why you think the Copperheads were right and Lincoln was bad. You just sort of think that.

To be 100% correct, you have no idea why I think the Copperheads were closer to right than today’s anti-war crowd and Lincoln was bad not my favorite president.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, do you think Lincoln was a champion of small government and states rights?

Compared to whom? Jefferson Davis and the Southern leadership? Based on their actions during the rebellion I think they were worse in many ways than anything Lincoln was accused of.