Posted on 06/22/2015 3:19:00 PM PDT by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
A willingness to enslave is not determined by something so simplistic as a compass point.
If you had been born in Germany, i'm sure you'd be a good little Nazi as well. Your argument that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT is the excuse all totalitarians have used throughout history.
Yes, you're proud, because your father brainwashed you into being proud of one of the least proud moments in this nation's history. The pity is that you are susceptible to such conditioning instead of being objective and rational.
The Union forces didn't fight to end slavery. They (mostly) didn't care about ending slavery until their superiors told them that they would care about ending slavery, at which time they stood ready to enforce those new commands too.
It might as well have been the Sudetenland, of which i'm sure the Germans were also proud.
Godwin’s law.
You are excused you pathetic loser.
Created by Liberal Professor Mike Godwin who was apparently uncomfortable with being reminded how closely Liberal behavior resembles that of Nazis.
I expect you object for the same reasons.
You are excused you pathetic loser.
As if it were that easy. :)
I was wondering, the left says the Confederate flag brings up memories of hatred, racism, bigotry, etc., etc., and it needs to be removed so as to not stir those memories. Will the left say the same thing about white people, as they do about the Confederate Flag?
Knowing how the left thinks, I would not put it past them. There reasonong will be, it is time to get rid of all white people(exept them, of course), since the sight of white people by black people, brings back the same memories that the Confederate flag did.
And the sad part is, in this day and age, where insanity rules, there will be people, white included, that think that is a great idea.
In this case, it was.
That’s exactly what I was asking you. Exactly what I’m talking about.
Do read his book.
In this case it was being a Democrat that made one willing to enslave.
A cartoonishly simple-minded explanation defines a re-write of history. It is easily accepted by the lazy and illiterate.
There are actually some in the north that embrace this, not because they are simple minded, but because they feel morally superior by proxy.
No. A willingness to enslave is not determined by a compass point.
Human nature is human nature, if that’s what you mean.
But the abolition of slavery was central to this war, even if current-generation revisionists in the South want to deny it.
Oh, aye. It most certainly was.
That is not what we were discussing. Strawman.
No one honestly believes that slavery is/was more likely in Peru than Brazil because it is further south.
There are just as many good people(per capita) In South Dakota as North.
The willingness to enslave is not determined by something so ludicrous as a compass point.
But, where you do have slavery you tend to have a culture that justifies it. Bizarrely in the American South, even 150 years later. That culture is fairly open to criticism, even though human nature indeed is pretty much universal.
A culture is not a compass point. In this case the culture was Democrat.
The North has nothing to be proud of, and the South nothing to be ashamed. This shame lies on the political left.
I know you are not simple minded. What propels such an absurd notion? Tell me which makes one morally superior, living at elevation or at sea level? Living east or west?
You are the one who here will not see.
And what is it that I will not see?
If a willingness to enslave is determined by a compass point(south), then why is it that only North Korea enslaves its citizens?
Pro-gay, pro-censorship.
You definitely need a new website.
Quick Take on Civil War:
Suppose for a moment that the Federal government wanted to pass laws and enact policies that effectively removed the individual right to bear arms.
The Feds and particularly a new presidential candidate let slip their plans to turn Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa into full states with voting Senators and congressmen.
In exchange for Statehood and other cash payments (to the right causes and people) these new States would tip the balance of power enough to meet the gun control objectives.
Getting wind of the plan, first, the constitution respecting States object, but then after losing the election they see the wheels go in motion, call their respective legislatures, and vote to secede.
Did they vote to secede over gun control? Yes, to some degree, but at least as importantly, they seceded because the Federal government was acting outside its authority, and taking action to unfairly change the balance of power to pass new law.
Do the people in the seceding States have a right to pride in their stand? Whether one agrees or disagrees with gun control, it is perfectly fine to have pride in those that stood up to the Federal government power grab.
It is certainly a reasonable argument, but it will have no impact on those who wish to believe a certain thing.
Much of the opinions on the civil war are entirely subject to who your ancestors were and what part of the country you are from. Their opinions take on more of the "Yah! Our Team!" motivation than any other. The actual facts and principles involved are irrelevant to their reasons for wanting to believe their side is right. They just want to believe their side is right, and to use the available facts and their own preference in principles to justify what they wish to believe anyway.
Valid arguments don't really work very well in an emotion driven discussion.
This is one reason the Libs always win. Their arguments are always emotion over reason, because they are mostly emotion driven.
My position is simple. The right to leave trumps all other considerations. The Freedom of Association requires an equal and opposite freedom. The Freedom to disassociate. To refuse to be part of something with which you disagree.
It is the people who assert that Abolition of Slavery was central to this war who are revising history. Lincoln flatly contradicts this view.
When the war started, there was no intention by the Union to abolish slavery at all. This was simply a later developed war tactic that they dragooned into service as a fig leaf to explain their determination to press so hard as to kill 600,000 men.
After killing so many people, they had to have a D@mned good reason, and so they started pushing the "To Abolish Slavery!" propaganda. People wanted to believe men fought and died for some noble cause, and simply did not want to hear that they didn't.
But this view is a revision of history, and is not true at all.
The men of the Union fought to stop independence, and they only abolished slavery as a War tactic, as Propaganda, as Punishment to the south for putting up such a fight, and as ex post facto justification for the bloodshed they caused.
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.