Posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk
Being one who definitely thinks that our Civil War was an unnecessary loss of life and property, I have finally figured out how the South could have averted war, and stopped Northern aggression in its tracks.
You see the South possessed a 'secret weapon' that it didn't realize it had. What the South should have done, in the late 1850's, is to have realized that slavery was a dying institution anyway and that it could get by for the time being with half or a third less slaves than it had.
The South could have granted immediate freedom to half of its slave population with the condition that after manumission they couldn't remain in the South, but would have to move up North. If politically astute, the South could have 'spun' this relocation requirement as simply a way of spreading 'diversity' to the North.
With this, the abolitionist movement up North would have stopped 'dead in its tracks', in my opinion, and over 700,000 lives would have been saved, and all slaves would have been gained freedom anyway before 1900 due to international pressure.
"Opinion" is totally what this is about, yours, mine, the Supreme Courts, everybody's. What, you don't think the SCOTUS has never reversed itself -- it's "opinions?" Convenient that you do not acknowledge my point that the court was stacked -- how could it not be in 1869?! -- the basis upon which it is likely the court would and could reverse the weak branch upon which you stake your "opinion." Duh.
Your just another one of those egg heads who make general statements and then insult the poster.
Live with it? No problem, it's easy when you know you are right.
Actually, what I said is pretty much the opposite of fundamentalism.
You're right. The U.S. needs more education in many specific fields--language skills, weapons of mass destruction, etc., et al. It also needs less indoctrination of the kind that blares constantly on television and throughout many U.S. college campuses--"Liberal" (nothing to do with "liberal" as freedom loving or free thinking)--decadent--self defeating--confused--dangerous--
I'm not falling behind economically or socially... If I were, how would you know? I'm certainly not embarrassed... And I haven't failed... Quite the opposite.
That bit about "touchy, narcissistic sensibility" is downright stupid. I won't bother to comment.
You have a silly tendency to jump to conclusions--and to some very silly conclusions.
Everything you said in this post (#105) was just plain dumb. I'm sure you can do better that that.
That will come as news to Johnston who on the order of Jefferson Davis was sent the following telegram on July 17, 1864:
...Lieut. Gen. J.B. Hood has been commissioned to the temporary rank of general ... as you have failed to arrest the advance of the enemy to the vicinity of Atlanta ... you are hereby relieved from the command of the Army and Department of Tennessee, which you will immediately turn over to General Hood.
The Battle of Atlanta is generally given a date of July 22, after which the city was under siege until its evacuation in early September. General Hood was commander of the Confederate forces there from July 18th.
Interesting quandry you find yourself in. Either admit that the ommission in the court ruling IS PERTINENT, or admit that the fact that the right to secession was left out because it was a "simple and obvious fact."
God this is easy. I can win on your terms or mine. I love it.
No, you don't know YOUR history! See the statistics by McPherson in his book 'Ordeal by Fire' regarding the educational levels across the US. I suppose you might find a small fraction of a percantage of blacks who were highly educated, I'm not disputing that, but I'm looking at the whole, and you are looking at rare exceptions to the rule.
Because it is something you 'Yankees' can't understand. A king doesn't ask his subjects for permission to eat does he? Well, body of higher sovereinty doesn't have to go and ask permission of a lower entity to exercise that higher sovereinty.
And tell me this? Even if what you say is true, then why didn't the northeastern states who were meeting to secede from the Union in 1814 (over their disatisfaction with the War of 1812) plan to go to the Supreme Court and ask for permission? The only reason they didn't follow thru with secession is because Jefferson was able to bring the war to a close.
So what you espouse is 'bull'.
You got yourself a Hindsight Device?
No $hit?
(i know...take Exlax.}
What model you using; the new *20.20*, or one of the older, outa focus models?
This guy & his *insight*?
He's gonna be real shocked to learn just how many experts are converging at this very instant to have themselves a field day.
Actually, it had more to do with agriculture, weather, and landscape than white supremacy. Ever try to grow cotton up north, city-boy?
As to the 'rebels' of 1812, you answered yourself, - they won their point.
I notice that you fall back on that same old lame argument that the court was biased. Well this was the same court that issued the decision in Ex Parte Milligan which ruled that Lincoln was wrong in suspending habeas corpus in Indiana during the war. I suppose, since it was the same court, that the decision then was wrong and biased in your view as well?
If you keep patting yourself on the back the way you are, proclaiming that you are right even though you show no evidence, you are liable to pull something.
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.