Skip to comments.
Why 2012 election looks a lot like 1860
Dakota Voice ^
| June 4, 2011
| Star Parker
Posted on 06/04/2011 12:34:35 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 201-215 next last
To: GregoryFul
Good comment. You might also have mentioned that one motivation Lincoln had for the emancipation proclamation was to keep Britain from recognizing the Confederate States as a sovereign nation. The British public was very anti-slavery.
101
posted on
06/04/2011 5:52:31 PM PDT
by
Rocky
(REPEAL IT!)
To: GregoryFul
The southern rabble started bloody hostilities by raising treasonous armies and finally attacking Ft. Sumter. Here you are wrong and are letting your own petty provincialism color your otherwise factual assessments.
The planter aristocracy initiated hostilities. The "rabble" as you put it only involved themselves after northern states raised armies and, in their perception, invaded and threatened their homes and families.
I know both sides very well, planters and "rabble," have them both in my ancestry. You have it precisely backwards. Maybe you merely intended to slur all southerners or something, if so, ho-hum, nothing new or original there.
I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt. At least you know the Emancipation Proclamation was a military document intended to raise a slave rebellion in Confederate states only, as it did not deign to free them elsewhere.
To: Rocky
Good comment. You might also have mentioned that one motivation Lincoln had for the emancipation proclamation was to keep Britain from recognizing the Confederate States as a sovereign nation. The British public was very anti-slavery.
Ironically the Confederates had a few things in their Constitution to try and make sure that the European powers would recognize them, such as banning international slave trading. Of course, the Confederates explicitly spelled out in their Constitution that people have the right to own slaves and the Confederate Congress could not remove that right, and that automatically made a lot of countries wary of them.
No surprise though, Mississippi, Georgie, South Carolina, Texas, and some of the others explicitly spelled out in the first few sentences or first paragraph or two of their statements/declarations of secession that the right to own slaves was important to them. I'm not one of those religious types that thinks we are made in the image of God and that enslaving humans is a sin that should be brutally punished, although I do look down upon slavery, but it's hard to be upset about the ills that befell a group of people so intent on owning another group of people. History, and God, has typically not looked kindly upon slave owning nations and empires, especially when those slaves included Christians.
To: PeaRidge
As more and more media outlets repeat this propaganda, the masses become convinced.....mental manipulation by availability cascading. "Availability cascading" = ?
104
posted on
06/04/2011 6:18:55 PM PDT
by
lentulusgracchus
(Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
To: af_vet_rr
Looking through the Texas declaration to secede, as a Texan whose family has been here since the days of the Spanish, it's incredibly embarrassing to read the first part of the declaration:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
What in the Hell were they thinking, starting off and talking about securing peace and liberty for the people of Texas, and then turning around a few sentences later and arguing they had the right to enslave other human beings.
You have to wonder how they could live with themselves, writing such a document.
To: central_va
106
posted on
06/04/2011 6:38:27 PM PDT
by
Randy Larsen
(Wise To The Lies!)
To: nathanbedford
A fundamental concept is that the economy is a chaotic system, a complex system with self-referential feedback. Mathematicians know that one cannot predict the effect any driver will have on such a system. In economies, I think, the proof is the confusion evident in that schooled economists are diametrically opposed on conviction as to what may happen as a result of some specified top down action. I say that the trajectory of economic systems cannot be predicted or controlled given our current understanding of chaotic systems. The same driver can have a much different effect each time it is used, even when the initial conditions seem the same. Very confusing.
For now, we can only ride out the usual storms, the systemic excursions, and trust that the feedback within the system will yield a positive outcome for its participants, letting a bottoms up approach stabilize and restore apparently errant gross moves, a necessary condition of any system that endures long term.
107
posted on
06/04/2011 6:38:37 PM PDT
by
GregoryFul
(Obama - Jim Jones redux)
To: RegulatorCountry
The rabble I refer to are the stinking southern aristocracy, not the poor folk who were the cannon fodder that they employed to try and defend their evil empire. Apparently the leaders were people without a conscience, without a sense of justice that would admit them as Americans supporting of the founding documents, traitors. All should have been hung, along with their spoiled families, and except for the God fearing graciousness of the northerners and in particular, Lincoln, would have been.
108
posted on
06/04/2011 6:55:26 PM PDT
by
GregoryFul
(Obama - Jim Jones redux)
To: RKBA Democrat; central_va; nathanbedford
Man one particularly vile one here...never seen out before..calling for hanging southern slave owners and their kids
Guess they coulda started with at least half the founders...
Strange bedfellows we have on this site...there is no more common ground with them than with rabid leftists
109
posted on
06/04/2011 7:09:54 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
(ok...so far I am Palin/Rubio 2012....i can explain easy..just ask)
To: wardaddy
Wadda ya think, buddy, holding other people as chattel is decent, honorable, tolerable? Goof.
110
posted on
06/04/2011 7:12:41 PM PDT
by
GregoryFul
(Obama - Jim Jones redux)
To: wardaddy
Oh, yeah - and killing lots of Americans to defend this vile practice is good. You go, friend.
111
posted on
06/04/2011 7:15:09 PM PDT
by
GregoryFul
(Obama - Jim Jones redux)
To: GregoryFul
I think the Civil War was a complicated affair that I wish could have been avoided and that has blame to bear on both sides.
I think you however are a wolf ticket selling rude jerk of a Yankee who sees the whole tragic affair through the prism of race for personal reasons.
And that in addition to be being a bloviate unable to communicate sans preening hyperbole that you are a perfect example of precisely why my ancestors fought and fought valiently....not so much slavery but because such boorish self righteousness will never be tolerated by decent folks for long
I would take a Christian well mannered slaveowning gentleman over such a arse as one who talks trash with the hypocritical hubris you exhibit here
In other words..you are a well deserved stereotype
112
posted on
06/04/2011 8:00:24 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
(ok...so far I am Palin/Rubio 2012....i can explain easy..just ask)
To: nathanbedford
We are not "literally" slaves. A literal slave is in bondage, cannot get out of slavery, is not recompensed, can be physically abused, and has no recourse.Would you consider people living in the former USSR slaves? Your definition surely fits them.
113
posted on
06/04/2011 8:25:29 PM PDT
by
johnny reb
(A Trillion seconds is 32,000 Years!)
To: GregoryFul
Anyone who comes on a conservative board where folks argue and hash out many issues including this one and advocates the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of white, Indian and mixed race Southerners..and I assume those many northerners who owned slaves for 150 years as well..
this nation would not be half what it is without the very contributions of all those folks you wish to have had mass murdered...women and children to...
if there were any Southern mods...and I doubt there are...your ridiculous and inflammatory musings would be stricken...but south bashing to the point of antiwhite bigotry even by proven lefties has always been more tolerated here more than I would were the headquarters in Franklin TN instead of Fresno
you write like an academician but you have demonstrated you have no credibility in reasonable discourse amongst reasonable folks..hoss
you can have last word...I know you have to
114
posted on
06/04/2011 8:45:43 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
(ok...so far I am Palin/Rubio 2012....i can explain easy..just ask)
To: GregoryFul
There’s a long history of conflict between coastal planter aristocracy and inland/upland yeoman farmers in the south, GregoryFul. Please don’t tell me you’re susceptible to that wholly manufactured but oddly hypnotic “slave power” nonsense that has been de rigeur in university for decades. They distrusted, even hated one another, going back to the earliest colonial times.
They wouldn’t have fallen in with one another to become “cannon fodder” as you put it, without external provocation. The dumb country bumpkin stereotype, whether employed to disparage or in a wrongheaded attempt at giving a pass, is still offensive and wrong. Those who fought, fought with honor in the sincere belief that they were defending their homes, families and States (yes, capital “S”). Those who could not get past historic animus attempted to secede from the secessionists themselves, and in the instance of West Virginia, succeeded in so doing.
It was a different time, and projecting modern sensibilities upon people dead over a century ago is going to always lead you to bizarre conclusions. Human bondage, offensive as it is to those same modern sensibilities, has been part of practically every culture on every continent for practically all of world history. Our day and age has the luxury of being free of it, despite the worst efforts of all involved back then.
It remains a rarity in the grand scheme of things, though, freedom from bondage does, and that appears to be the source of your mistaken assumptions and unfortunate biases, that human bondage has always been viewed as a hideous wrong. It hasn’t been. There are large swathes of the world today that have it.
Does that make it “right?” Not to us it doesn’t, but the applicability does seem to find an end at that point.
To: wardaddy
I would take a Christian well mannered slaveowning gentleman over such a arse as one who talks trash with the hypocritical hubris you exhibit here
A well mannered Christian wouldn't own slaves. There is a reason why the abolition movement was led by Christian groups and why the fight against slavery and things like the underground railroad were led or supported by very spiritual people.
As I said, I'm not a fundamentalist who thinks we were created in the image of God, but I understand people who do believe that, and I understand why they were so angry at slave owners. More than a few probably felt that Sherman's campaign was an 1860s version of the 10 plagues visited upon Egypt. They probably would have liked Sherman to take his roadshow and continue on around the south hitting the other states.
These discussions are always tricky on FR, because we are all about freedom here, and the Confederate leaders weren't, since you can't be for freedom if you support the enslavement of human beings. It'd be like an abortion doctor being pro-life. The Confederate leaders deliberately added the right to own slaves to the Confederate Constitution and made sure that the Confederate Congress could not remove that right, and several southern states made slavery their #1 or #2 reason to secede, laying out their arguments right there in their declarations of secession.
The typical poor Southerner was not to blame. Should they have been against slavery? Of course, both for economic and moral reasons, and because most were Christians. However, many of them did not understand what was happening and many were manipulated by the wealthy.
If people want to be angry, be angry at the slave owners and be angry at the Confederate leaders who enshrined the right to own slaves in the Confederate Constitution.
Finally, and most importantly, be angry at the Democrats who tried to take away the freedom that was given to the slaves, that was paid for with the blood of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. The Democrats and their Jim Crow laws set our nation back a century and tried to undo the freedom that was paid for with American blood. Not only did they take some of the freedoms away from the ex-slaves, along the way they divided our nation even further and then bamboozled minorities into thinking that the Republicans were the racist party.
To: Nebr FAL owner
>>
That is why the form of govt. that this country has is a representational republic with democratic traditions NOT a true direct democracy. <<
Nobody has ever claimed America is a "direct democracy where all 350 million people get a vote on everything". We claim America has democracy. Democracy is simply a Greek word that means "people rule". That's true in America, we the people are the ultimate source of authority and the politicians run things with the consent of the governed. America is an indirect democracy where the people rule by electing representative government. Always has been, always will be. Saying we have a form of democracy does not imply the people have absolute power, no more than saying England has a monarchy means they're saying it's an absolute monarchy where the Queen can do WHATEVER she wants. Simply having democracy by itself doesn't "cause" mob rule anymore than having a monarch by itself guarantees the King can be a tyrant and behead people at random. England in a monarchy, it's not an absolute democracy. If you claimed "England is a kingdom, NOT a monarchy" you'd be wrong.
The freepers who insist America is simply "a Republic, NOT a democracy" don't know what they're talking about. We have democracy in America, it's just not absolute. If the founders intended us to simply be "a Republic" with NO democracy, they would have set up the type of government they have in North Korea.
117
posted on
06/04/2011 10:00:57 PM PDT
by
BillyBoy
(Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
To: GregoryFul
From your about page:
Enjoy surprising people with arcane snippets from various sources.
Some decades ago there was a book published entitled, How to Lie with Statistics, presently, no doubt, someone will publish another book entitled How to Lie with Snippets
118
posted on
06/04/2011 11:26:21 PM PDT
by
nathanbedford
("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
To: GregoryFul
From your about page:
Enjoy surprising people with arcane snippets from various sources.
Some decades ago there was a book published entitled, How to Lie with Statistics, presently, no doubt, someone will publish another book entitled How to Lie with Snippets
119
posted on
06/04/2011 11:26:31 PM PDT
by
nathanbedford
("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
To: GregoryFul
I think it was Yogi Berra who put it a little bit more succinctly:
"Predictions are hard especially about the future."
120
posted on
06/04/2011 11:38:36 PM PDT
by
nathanbedford
("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 201-215 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson