Democrats fire on Ft. Sumter

What? Seriously. Are you brain damaged? Those two concepts [abortion and slavery] have to correlation whatsoever.

You’re just babbling.

It is true that by the eternal and unalterable laws of G-d, which humanity is powerless to change, slavery is not wrong (though there is some question as to whether the form of slavery practiced in America qualified as permissible), while abortion is almost always wrong and often murder. On that you are right.

However, what you fail to appreciate is that Northern states were full of people who sincerely believed slavery was wrong and it was being forced down their throats. They were being told that slavery could not be kept out of their states and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it. They were being made to feel complicit in something they considered a sin, much as conservatives today are forced to feel complicit in so many liberal policies that are being forced down our thoughts.

Now even if something isn't technically wrong, whenever you force them to tolerate something they they sincerely believe is wrong you do grave damage to their consciences and you're asking for trouble.

I am very sorry that you don't seem able to appreciate this. Perhaps the often utterly unfair and false charges flung at your ancestors are causing you to react emotionally. Or perhaps you share the libertarian anti-moralism of many neo-Confederates. I can tell you that I do not appreciate being made to feel complicit in things that I regard as evil and being told that if I even so much as open my mouth I am a "hater." This is how many Northerners felt about the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott Decision, and the physical violence that often was visited on anyone who dared to speak his mind.

I honor Robert E. Lee who simply followed his conscience and fought for his beloved state. I wish you would have the same respect for my own ancestors that I have for yours.

To conclude, I note that in forcing people to tolerate what they sincerely believe to be evil and in being told that they are not permitted to speak out the current Democrat apple doesn't fall far from the historical Democrat tree.

As I recall it, the Army of Tennessee was destroyed by General Thomas in the Battle of Nashville. It was gone by the time Sherman took Savannah.

The Army of Tennessee was destroyed at the Battle of Nashville two days before and a 1000 miles away from Savanna, when Sherman marched in.

Hood took Sherman's bate and willingly marched his army away from Georgia in October of '64 in the typical Hood vainglorious attempt to retake Tennessee. This was after Sherman kicked Hood out of Atlanta and spent a month or more fighting various battles with Hood across North Georgia.

Of all the Generals of the Civil War on both sides, Hood, along with Bragg, were the most vain, incompetent and destructive to their cause. Hood destroyed the Army of Tennessee by invading Union held territory against a superior Union force while leaving Sherman free to do what he wanted in Georgia.

Hood's decision to go for glory allowed Sherman to make his march to the sea.

Given that you did not answer my question about being brain damaged I can only conclude that I am correct. What you did scribe was an incoherent mess.

“However, what you fail to appreciate is that Northern states were full of people who sincerely believed slavery was wrong and it was being forced down their throats...”

Wrong. They were free to withdraw just as the Southern states did and as they threatened to do. And again, no one forced them to own slaves...so you make no sense.

“They were being told that slavery could not be kept out of their states and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.”

What are you talking about? At least eight states abolished slavery. And again, they could have seceded but chose not to.

“They were being made to feel complicit in something they considered a sin, ...”

Pretty stupid to feel that way given that they had abolished slavery within their sovereign states. Are you one of their descendants?

“Now even if something isn’t technically wrong, whenever you force them to tolerate something they they sincerely believe is wrong you do grave damage to their consciences and you’re asking for trouble.”

True. But that doesn’t apply to the slavery issue as you formed it. Also...I wouldn’t latch on to that concept too tightly. There are many people who feel exactly the same way about organized religion and/or Christianity. You are tacitly giving them permission to pursue banning religion the same way you think it was OK for abolitionists to ban slavery. Is that what you are for? You can’t have it both ways.

“I am very sorry that you don’t seem able to appreciate this.”

Don’t be sorry. I can’t appreciate it because it’s not true...as you frame it.

“Perhaps the often utterly unfair and false charges flung at your ancestors are causing you to react emotionally.”

Actually, I get emotional because there is no sense or logic to your comments.

“Or perhaps you share the libertarian anti-moralism of many neo-Confederates.”

LOL!

“I can tell you that I do not appreciate being made to feel complicit in things that I regard as evil and being told that if I even so much as open my mouth I am a “hater.”

First thing you’ve said that made any sense at all.

“This is how many Northerners felt about the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott Decision,....”

FINALLY! A salient point. Perhaps if enough northerners had felt the same way they would have opted out of the union.

“...and the physical violence that often was visited on anyone who dared to speak his mind.”

Huh?

“I honor Robert E. Lee who simply followed his conscience and fought for his beloved state. I wish you would have the same respect for my own ancestors that I have for yours.”

For the most part I do. Never said otherwise. The only problem I have had is that most of your commentary is rambling, factually incorrect, incoherence.

“To conclude, I note that in forcing people to tolerate what they sincerely believe to be evil and in being told that they are not permitted to speak out the current Democrat apple doesn’t fall far from the historical Democrat tree.”

Union States were free to leave...no one forced them to stay. I do not understand why you think people were not allowed to speak out against slavery, given the predominance of rhetoric from the abolitionists. This is a prime example of how you go from actual point — though wrong — to make believe.

And my point was, and still is, until Lincoln we conducted our business as a federation of free and independent states, just as our name implies. With Lincoln and the WBTS all that changed, and set in motion the wheels of socialized governance that gave us Obama and socialized medicine. You may not like it. You may not want to admit it...but that’s the simple truth.

Own up to it and quit babbling.

No “crap”! They say it didn’t happen. Truthfully it did happen. And many slaves drowned trying to follow him. Sherman allowing them to follow him I compare to the democrats today allowing a poor dumb woman to believe that if she votes for a democrat her mortgage will be paid and her gas tank will always be full.

I believe that in a time of war it is wise to kill the leader if possible. But the feds wanted to call it a crime. I didn’t know they had the Bolin Amendment back then.

Truthfully most of us had descendents who fought on both sides. One of mine was a founder of Shelbyville, Tenn. That city “voted” to stay with the union and was spared being put to the torch because of that. Had another who fought for the South but never owned a slave. Don’t have as much information about him because the courthouse was burned by the federal troops. Don’t guess they saw any reason to burn the “fine antebellum homes”. And they didn’t burn Port Gibson, Mississippi because Grant said “It’s too pretty to burn”. Ha!

I, like all of us, believe slavery was horrible. But if that’s what the Civil War was about Lincoln sure took his sweet time freeing them.

Finally, some of us believe Lincoln was a criminal who trampled on the constitution. But, since our side lost, I guess we aren’t entitled to our own oppinion. But there’s one thing that can’t be denied and that is Lincoln was a bi-sexual (according to what I saw on the liberal History Channel) and today would be pushing for gay marriage! HEE, HEE!

What are you talking about? At least eight states abolished slavery.

But those eight states could not prevent people bringing slaves into their states and then keeping them as slaves despite state law (this is what the Dred Scott decision was about). And aren't you the one who recently chimed in saying that a federal law applies to all the states? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself here.

And again, they could have seceded but chose not to.

In other words, the Planters' way or the highway. Yep. You're a Democrat, all right.

“I can tell you that I do not appreciate being made to feel complicit in things that I regard as evil and being told that if I even so much as open my mouth I am a “hater.”

First thing you’ve said that made any sense at all.

Too bad you don't see the parallel with the situation in which anti-slavery people found themselves when their printing presses were being wrecked and they were being physically attacked for so much as opening their mouths.

“This is how many Northerners felt about the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott Decision,....”

FINALLY! A salient point. Perhaps if enough northerners had felt the same way they would have opted out of the union.

If you have no idea how ironic and arrogant that sounds, I pity you. So much for your "states' rights."

“Now even if something isn’t technically wrong, whenever you force them to tolerate something they they sincerely believe is wrong you do grave damage to their consciences and you’re asking for trouble.”

True. But that doesn’t apply to the slavery issue as you formed it.

Why not?

Also...I wouldn’t latch on to that concept too tightly. There are many people who feel exactly the same way about organized religion and/or Christianity. You are tacitly giving them permission to pursue banning religion the same way you think it was OK for abolitionists to ban slavery. Is that what you are for?

Then I guess we'd better repeal the laws against murder and pull down all the traffic lights, since some people feel about organized religion the way others feel about speeding. Sheesh.

You can’t have it both ways.

Then why do you insist on having it both ways? In one breath you claim that the Union was a mere alliance of sovereign nations, and no one state could dictate to another. In the next you deny the right of the "sovereign states" who chose to abolish slavery to prevent slavery being practiced there, demanding instead that they withdraw from the Union altogether! So which is it? Could the Sovereign State of Ohio automatically free any slave who crossed its state line (despite the Dred Scott Decision), or did it have to cede its "state sovereignty" or else get out of the Union altogether? Thanks for clearing that up for me. The slave states were sovereign entities; the free states were colonies of the slave states.

You know something? I want to thank you. I must confess that every so often, in light of the current political situation, I have had doubts about the decision my ancestors made. You have just vindicated them.

And my point was, and still is, until Lincoln we conducted our business as a federation of free and independent states, just as our name implies.

Wrong! This was one interpretation of the Union--the Jeffersonian one. The Hamiltonian interpretation is just as old and just as authentic. The notion that until Lincoln the Jeffersonian interpretation constituted the "official" or "authentic" interpretation of the Constitution is sheer mythology. And if we were a "federation of free and independent states," then why do you deny sovereignty to the free states and insist that their only legitimate option was to secede from this "federation?" Don't you respect their "sovereignty?"

With Lincoln and the WBTS all that changed, and set in motion the wheels of socialized governance that gave us Obama and socialized medicine. You may not like it. You may not want to admit it...but that’s the simple truth.

I don't know what mush you've been fed for history, but let me give you a little lesson: Jefferson Davis was a centralizing, big government dictator. He was so bad some ideologically consistent Confederates wanted out of the Confederacy! Everything the "Communist dictator" Lincoln did in the North, Davis did first and worse. And it was the Confederacy, not the Union, that experimented with state socialism.

I'm sorry, but in insisting on sovereignty for the slave states while denying it to the free states you show yourself to be a hypocrite and a true child of the party that spawned Nancy Pelosi.

“But those eight states could not prevent people bringing slaves into their states and then keeping them as slaves despite state law (this is what the Dred Scott decision was about)”
Really?! No kidding? So…you are saying that if somebody from up north steals my car and takes it to your state it would be OK to keep it? It may not have been pretty, but that was the standard of the day. The standard YOUR state agreed to. If you wanted to protest you should have protested to YOUR people.
“In other words, the Planters’ way or the highway. Yep. You’re a Democrat, all right.”
Utterly stupid comment given that Yankees are the ones who told the south “It’s OUR way, period. We will free your slaves and make YOU slaves. While I am NOT a democrat, I would rather be one than to be a tyrant. You can’t have it both ways.
“Too bad you don’t see the parallel with the situation in which anti-slavery people found themselves when their printing presses were being wrecked and they were being physically attacked for so much as opening their mouths.”
Never said I didn’t. What I was saying is that your thoughts, as expressed, have been so disjointed, based on false presumptions, and lacking of context that they were meaningless and impossible to rebut. You’re not very good at this.
“If you have no idea how ironic and arrogant that sounds, I pity you. So much for your “states’ rights.”
Perfect example of you disjointed debating. Your reply does not relate to my comment whatsoever.
“Why not?”
Go back and read my comments and then read yours. You respond to things I never said.
“Then I guess we’d better repeal the laws against murder and pull down all the traffic lights, since some people feel about organized religion the way others feel about speeding. Sheesh. “
What??? Your reply supports my case and you don’t even realize it.
“Then why do you insist on having it both ways? In one breath you claim that the Union was a mere alliance of sovereign nations, and no one state could dictate to another.”
I NEVER said that. Dude. You have GOT to quit inserting you fantasies into my comments. And, so, you ARE saying that one state CAN dictate to the another?!!!

That’s it. This is not a debate. It’s a conversation with the village idiot. Seriously. You’re too stupid to post on FR. What’s your mom’s email address? I need to have her shut you off from the basement and the PC.
God help us. No wonder the dims are winning.

Really?! No kidding? So…you are saying that if somebody from up north steals my car and takes it to your state it would be OK to keep it?

Oh. Sorry then. I didn't realize moral qualms were so out of place in the utopia that was antebellum America.

It may not have been pretty, but that was the standard of the day. The standard YOUR state agreed to. If you wanted to protest you should have protested to YOUR people.

I am sorry you have chosen to ignore the fact that I am a Southerner from a former slave state. My ancestors were living in a slave state--a very divided slave state--when they fought for the Union. West Virginia, East Tennessee, western North Carolina, even northern Georgia and Alabama were full of Union sentiment. The "undivided Confederate South" is a myth, just as is the "undivided, morally pure North."

And, so, you ARE saying that one state CAN dictate to the another?!!!

Why not? Apparently that's what you believe.

As a Southerner myself and thus keenly aware of anti-Southern prejudice and the fairy tales so many people are fed as "history," I can understand your emotional reaction. However, if you will take a moment to catch your breath calm down I hope you will realize that calling me, a fellow Southerner, "the village idiot" and a basement-dwelling otaku does absolutely nothing to advance your case. I will not respond in kind because I can understand the reason for your overreaction.

You have not responded to my remarks about the highly centralized nature of the Confederacy. Also, you ignore the important contributions to states' rights made by New Englanders during the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Have you ever heard of "interposition?" This means a state government may interpose itself between the federal government and its own citizens to protect them from federal usurpations. This doctrine was formulated by New England Federalists when there was talk of a military draft during the War of 1812. And for this they were branded "traitors" by rabid centralizing nationalists like the young John C. Calhoun.

Finally, please allow me to make myself perfectly clear. I am not only a religious fundamentalist but a Theocrat. I believe in G-d's laws and that they are universal, objective, and statutorily obligatory. The US Constitution is not perfect (being formulated in party by men who were highly influenced by the philosophy of the "enlightenment") and A-mighty G-d sits in judgment on it just as He sits in judgment on all men and their systems. It is undeniable that the Torah condones slavery and regulates it. I actually find myself disagreeing with the people I have been defending from you, because they believe G-d's laws had changed (G-d forbid). If anything, it is this belief--that G-d's Laws are temporary, mutable, and changeable--that has made our current morass possible. Considering that my own ancestors fought against slavery, don't you think that having to admit they were wrong on that issue requires a certain amount of objectivity?

Finally, there is no one on this forum who is more alienated from the politics of American Blacks. I find their self-righteous alliance with the forces of evil to be inexcusable and something for which they will pay dearly (not because a bunch of "low-life crackers" like me are going to do anything to them, but they will be punished by G-d Himself). I have also been the number one defender of our poor white Southern people on this forum from slurs of all kinds from all quarters. True, I have never included a defense of the Confederacy in this defense of our people, but there is a bit of a gap between the wealthy, aristocratic planters of the past and today's poor whites who are made the scapegoats. I am sorry if this disappoints you, but I will continue to stick up for our people. And I will continue to refuse to extend this defense to the Confederacy or the attitude of the wealthy planters of the past.

Finally, your accusation that I manifest the attitude of the "dims" is simply laughable. I am proud of the fact that, unlike most Southern conservatives today, my ancestry is free of the taint of that evil and accursed party. Yet I have to endure the self-righteousness of that evil blot on human decency which, it is obvious now, should have been outlawed during Reconstruction. Not only did my parents vote for Goldwater, not only did they not vote for FDR, they voted for Coolidge, Harding, Hughes, Taft, and McKinley. How you can detect "federal tyranny" in these men is utterly beyond me.

Hamilton and Jefferson have always struggled with each other throughout our history and always shall. Neither is completely right; neither is completely wrong. That struggle continues in you and I, and it will continue when you and I are long gone.

Be well, my fellow Southerner and honorable opponent.

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.