Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Fallacy of distraction. Changing the subject. Conceding for the sake of argument (for about eight seconds) that your statement is correct, how does that exonerate Abraham Lincoln of the charge of having started the war?
Agreeing to fact is hardly a concession.
...how does that exonerate Abraham Lincoln of the charge of having started the war?
No need to exonerate President Lincoln for something that Jefferson Davis did.
Your statement explains the New Red Historians' South-bashing. The South is eeeevil! Southern conservatives are Hitchcock caricatures in slouch hats with snaggly teeth, like the ethnic-caricature critter-man in Jeepers Creepers.
I considered your feelings very carefully before I edited it for sensitivity, into the form that you have so ably cut-and-pasted.
You should have seen it before I edited it!
Try posts 83, 87, 102, and 104. Also the "Neoconfederates" thread referenced in 83.
Oh, I agree. But his roasting soul might appreciate exoneration from what he did, i.e. starting the war.
True statement as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as Neely's wonkery. But we'll see.
In his first inagural address, President Lincoln agreed to support a constitutional amendment to protect the domestic institutions of the states, and he agreed not to send obnoxious officials into the south. In point of fact, President Lincoln bent over backwards to avoid the war. Insurgent forces had fired on Old Glory well before he took office. Yours is just another attempt to flip an inconvertable fact of history into something else entirely.
Walt
If you're a historian, you have to be careful to wait to see how things come out first. If he ultimately fails , then you can award him style points, like Machiavelli did Cesare Borgia, but in the end you have to ding him. If he wins, of course, all his flaws are washed clean -- along with his hands -- and you can raise your voice in orisons of praise without fear of effective contradiction.
He wins, he's great. He loses, he's a bum. National Hockey League or The History Channel, the rules are pretty much the same.
Yeah, I read them. Just the same old opinion restated over and over again. In short, same old sh*t, different day. Lincoln made it clear that he was resupplying the fort, something he was well within his rights to do seeing as how it was a federal facility. He made it clear that if the resupply effort wasn't opposed then no new troops and munitions would be introduced, thus keeping the status quo. Yet Davis chose to fire anyway, and initiate a war in the process.
Do you have a special link to God so that you know exactly where Jeff Davis wound up? A burning bush, something like that? How else would you know that Jeff's soul was roasting?
So what did Neely state that you have shown to be wrong?
*Ignored post
248 posted on 09/11/2003 9:22 AM CDT by [*] (Ignored Poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
We refuted you on the 'no judiciary' charge not long ago.
CSA judiciary appointments
CSA District Court ruling upholding civilian rights
thatdewd's list of CSA District Court records
Non-Sequitur's concession to thatdewd
Non-Sequitur's concession to rustbucket
Nope. Read nolu chan's and rustbucket's retrievals, here:
Posts 1783, 1794 &ff, on the subject of whether Lincoln actually started the Civil War.
LOL-- I'll tell you, just as soon as you finish reading War and Peace seven times and then write me a 500-page book report. I should be done reading and fact-checking Neely's 3000 pages of Clintonoid wonkery by then!
Homework assignment refused. Old ploy. Write me when you get to St. Louis.
What, is our friend not playing fair again?
We'll have to mark him down a bit again in "Plays Well with Others".
Well, I wasn't discussing Jeff Davis's soul, but now that you mention it, we can surely hope that he doesn't have too close a view of where Abe's is roasting.
Try reading Neely once instead. It's less than 200 pages of actual reading, not 3000, and backed up by about 25 pages of footnotes. No pictures, however, so I guess that knocks it off your reading list. Why read it when blanket criticism is so much easier?
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.