To: central_va
The first civil war was about states rights, not slavery or tariffs. I happen to think the South would have benefited form protectionismIn that case I have no quarrel with you on this issue.
Many neo-Confederates hypocritically adopt very non-Southern, non-Confederate positions (such as Federalist protectionism or Midwestern Germanophilic non-interventionism) just to stay "politically correct" with "palaeo-conservatives." I admire people like you who are consistent, however much I may disagree with some of your other positions.
PS: Even Federalists ultimately believe in the right to secede. Every hear of the Essex Junto or Hartford Convention?
27 posted on
01/31/2014 8:11:04 AM PST by
Zionist Conspirator
(The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
To: Zionist Conspirator
The only two semi industrialized states in the Confederacy in 1860, GA and VA, would have been harmed by protectionism. But they did their duty as they saw it. And I agree with that.
Weird dichotomies existed then and exist now. Lee and Grant fought each other to the death on the battlefield but ironically believed in the other's cause.
35 posted on
01/31/2014 9:47:42 AM PST by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Zionist Conspirator
Many neo-Confederates hypocritically adopt very non-Southern, non-Confederate positions (such as Federalist protectionism or Midwestern Germanophilic non-interventionism) just to stay "politically correct" with "palaeo-conservatives."They would have their hearts in the right place but their mind is lagging then...
37 posted on
01/31/2014 9:52:48 AM PST by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson