You sound like that IRS administrator who recently testified before Congress: "I am totally innocent of all wrong-doing, and now I take the fifth and refuse to answer any questions."
Why do you suppose nobody believes her?
dsc: "I have no idea how to shake the faith of those who have been taught that 'the South started the Civil War to protect slavery.' "
Of course, it's not "faith", it's facts.
To state those facts precisely, it's:
dsc: "The North started the war to prevent the southern states from seceding peacefully, as was their right."
Of course, they did not "secede peacefully", far from it, and the North did not start war.
Instead Secessionists immediately began seizing Federal properties (i.e., forts, ships, customs houses, arsenals, armories, mints, etc.), and threatening Federal officials.
When newly-inaugurated President Lincoln attempted to resupply troops in Federal Fort Sumter, the Confederacy militarily assaulted and seized it.
When Lincoln called for Federal troops to retake the fort, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
dsc: "If you’d asked a southern soldier if he was fighting to protect slavery, he’d probably have thought for a moment, scratched, spit some tobacco and said, 'Well, yes, that too, I suppose.' "
I think it's even simpler than that, since most Confederate troops served very close to their own homes until or unless a Union force threatened them.
Then they would muster -- like Minute Men of old -- to fight off the aggressor, and after a battle return home until the next time.
That's exactly how their descendants came to believe it was only a "War of Northern Aggression", having little or nothing to do with slavery.
But in reality, Slave-Power started the war in order to achieve by military force what they could not through elections and negotiations.
dsc: "The way the basic humanity of the southerners is denied is a damned shame."
Nobody on Free Republic has ever denied your "basic humanity".
So the real "d*mned shame" is you people forever whining, complaining and crying about alleged insults which never happened.
Sure, maybe that's just typical of Southerners, but I say: it's time for you to man-up, suck it in, and move on with life, FRiend. ;-)
Good post.
One of the reasons for the unCivil War that doesn’t get enough airplay is sectionalism - the two-edged sword of regional bias. The positive side of it is an affinity for “home” - wherever that may be. The downside is when someone - or a group of someone’s - transcends hometown pride with regional bigotry.
There was ample amounts of bad-mouthing that took place in the years leading up to the war - both north and south. Elements that sought enmity, discord, and dissention between neighbors. It’s ironic that we still have a few of those bad apples running around ;-)
I don’t doubt for an instant that, at the individual level, a farmer would hear of the discord and impending fight, and want to protect his own. That’s natural. What wasn’t natural was the “chumming” that agitators did that whipped up emotions against one another for no good reason.
As I said, I don’t care to debate the Civil War question again, but I do have the inclination to respond to your personal slurs and misrepresentations.
(Isn’t it peculiar how people who are on the wrong side of an issue so often argue like liberals?)
Firstly, there’s this: “You sound like that IRS administrator who recently testified before Congress: ‘I am totally innocent of all wrong-doing, and now I take the fifth and refuse to answer any questions.’ ”
Aside from the fact that your assertion is false, in that I am not accused of wrong-doing, am not being questioned by any legally constituted body in regard to wrong-doing, and am not taking the Fifth—but am only declining to participate in an informal and anonymous debate—your statement is gratuitously malicious, in that you must have been aware of these things.
Then you sum up, “Nobody on Free Republic has ever denied your “basic humanity.” So the real “d*mned shame” is you people forever whining, complaining and crying about alleged insults which never happened. Sure, maybe that’s just typical of Southerners, but I say: it’s time for you to man-up, suck it in, and move on with life, FRiend.;-)”
1. It should have been apparent that I did not say that *my* basic humanity is denied, but that the basic humanity of those who fought against northern aggression is so often denied. Did you really not get that?
2. I said nothing about “insults” until this post, so I am inclined to view your comment about “crying about alleged insults” as a cynical attempt to head off or discredit comment on the very real insults in the post to which I now respond—directed at me, and not at 19th century southerners.
3. Misrepresenting disagreement as “whining, complaining, and crying” is quintessentially liberal behavior. If you do not think yourself to be a liberal, you might ask yourself why you are behaving like one in this post.
4. Your comment, “Sure maybe that’s just typical of Southerners” rather supports my point that the basic humanity of southerners gets short shrift from those who argue your position on this issue.
5. Moving on with life is exactly what I am doing in declining to debate the Civil War issue with someone who obviously lacks the capacity for reasoned discourse.
Further remarks will be ignored.