Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
Oh, I see. The poor helpless Unionist North just had to invade the South and crush its independence, then impose a military dictatorship which ensured Republican domination for decades, because otherwise troops from Mississippi would have rampaged through New York, New England, Illinois, etc., re-enslaving blacks and setting up plantations.

And the Southern independence movement had nothing in common with the American Revolution, even though the Confederate constitution was almost identical with the U.S. one.

I think you need to broaden your horizons and find new heroes to go along with Lincoln. Just as baboon-face "had to" be a tyrant and unleash total war on his own former countrymen "to save the Union," King George "had to" unleash war "to save the Empire," FDR "had to" impose socialism and trash the Constitution "to save capitalism," and 0bama "has to" socialize the rest of the economy "to save" the country from an unprecedented crisis.

38 posted on 02/20/2009 5:52:07 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: hellbender
Oh, I see. The poor helpless Unionist North just had to invade the South and crush its independence, then impose a military dictatorship which ensured Republican domination for decades, because otherwise troops from Mississippi would have rampaged through New York, New England, Illinois, etc., re-enslaving blacks and setting up plantations.

All your hyperbole aside, war was what the South chose when they fired on Sumter. Having chosen war then only the South was in a position to keep that war from coming into its homes. It's the risk you take when you start a conflict like that. So if your asking me to feel sorry for your precious confederacy because they lost the war then you're looking to the wrong person.

And the Southern independence movement had nothing in common with the American Revolution, even though the Confederate constitution was almost identical with the U.S. one.

Of course it didn't. The Founding Fathers rebelled on the principle that those being taxed should have representation in government. Well the South certainly had representation in Congress and they were overly represented in the House. They had their voice in each and every act of government. So rather than rebel in the face of injustice, the South chose to rebel to defend their institution of slavery.

I think you need to broaden your horizons and find new heroes to go along with Lincoln. Just as baboon-face "had to" be a tyrant and unleash total war on his own former countrymen "to save the Union," King George "had to" unleash war "to save the Empire," FDR "had to" impose socialism and trash the Constitution "to save capitalism," and 0bama "has to" socialize the rest of the economy "to save" the country from an unprecedented crisis.

I think you need to go and read up on the subject.

39 posted on 02/20/2009 7:06:21 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson