Posted on 04/13/2017 6:58:51 PM PDT by brucedickinson
Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
He may be from the Eastern part of the state but his district is Cabarrus County, outside of Charlotte.
FWIW the county voted 63% for John Bell in 1860, so I would suppose they were indeed unionists.
“that is there’s no logical way to defend Confederates without also defending the slavery they seceded for & fought to defend, except by lying about it, which of course is what you all do.”
GIGO. Your facts are incorrect, so your understanding is defective.
There is a fundamental similarity between your position and the left’s Trump-is-a-racist hallucination. It’s the same sort of purblind insistence on a conclusion that the facts just won’t support.
That narrow-minded ignorance leads you to go as far as making false accusations. Hard to imagine sinking lower than that, but I’m betting you’ll try.
“YankeeDoodle” predates Abraham Lincoln by just about four score and seven years. Every Patriotic American knows that. I’m sure you’ve heard of “the Spirit of ‘76”? But I forget, you’re the guy who believes that the Revolutionary War was fought by Americans to preserve slavery. You also seem to profess that the thirteen original colonies again fought in your imaginary “Lincoln’s War”, again, for slavery. While I had hoped you might carefully read and intelligently comment on the very small sampling of Lincoln in his own words, as usual, you completely ignore the substance, and pick at low hanging fruit. Seems to be your modus operandi.
I called no names.
Why didn’t you just ignore DoodleDawg’s comment last night? The moral indignation act just makes you look petty and childish. I’m surprised that someone didn’t hit the “report abuse” button for your post #150. Name calling and implied threats have no place on the forum.
Now we've had this discussion many times and you full well know the answer, even if some others don't.
The fact is our Founders fully understood there were two, and only two, conditions which fully justified, in their word, disunion: 1) mutual consent and 2) "abuses and usurpations" having that same effect.
In Madison's words:
Virginia's ratification statement uses the words, "injury or oppression" and New York's simplifies them to one word, "necessary".
But no Founder advocated or accepted the idea of secession "at pleasure" meaning without either mutual consent or necessity from abuses.
And, as it happened, in our Founders' case both legitimate reasons for disunion happened: first in 1776 by the necessity of abuses and usurpations from British King George (as spelled out in their DOI) and second in 1788 by mutual consent (ratification) of all the parties.
So our Founders were very clear on this subject and built into their Constitution protections not only against foreign invasion, but also against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and treason.
When Deep South states declared their secession "at pleasure" they violated Founders' Original Intent, but did not immediately commit rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion or treason.
However, within just a few weeks and months they committed all of those in provoking, starting, formally declaring and waging war against the United States in Union states.
President Lincoln's response to those acts was entirely in keeping with both spirit and letter of the Constitution Founders' Original Intent.
“Why didn’t you just ignore DoodleDawg’s comment last night?”
Moral indignation. It was wrong of him to say such a thing, and he deserved to be called on it.
“The moral indignation act”
Not an act, jack.
“I’m surprised that someone didn’t hit the “report abuse” button for your post #150.”
But not surprised that no one hit it for his abusive slurs. Your objectivity lends your criticisms great weight.
“Name calling and implied threats have no place on the forum.”
But the sort of vile accusations that DoodleDog slings about are just fine, eh? You’d best look to your own conduct before slamming others.
I don't mind looking at secondary sources to learn something, but I'm not going to register on some Internet site that calls itself “ASALH”. For all I know this could be the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church.
If you can't articulate your thought, don't expect me to go on a scavenger hunt. I'll stick with the plain text of the DOI.
Now I see it, went by his birth place of Kinston and couldn't find a map with the 82 district, assuuuuumed they were the same place, my bad.
Impy: "FWIW the county voted 63% for John Bell in 1860, so I would suppose they were indeed unionists."
Sooooooo... turns out my wild guess about some mountain moonshine loosening up the good representative's tongue may not have been so far wrong after all.
Hmmmmm... but now not so sure his western NC constituents will feel the same way he does about such matters.
You don't suppose he intends to move back to his home in east NC?
“It took time for him to get over it.”
Abe was just starting to turn his life around . . .
The difference is that Trump is not a racist, never was, by any reasonable definition of the word "racist".
By contrast, original Confederate leaders were all slave-holders and made no secret of their motivations, as have been quoted many times including, for examples, posts #89, #91 and #144 on this thread.
So you simply cannot dispute the facts of history, except by lying about them, which is of course what you all do.
I'm embarrassed & sorry for you.
dsc: "That narrow-minded ignorance leads you to go as far as making false accusations.
Hard to imagine sinking lower than that, but I’m betting you’ll try."
No, I make no false accusations, but you can tell no truth because you are tied to one of the biggest political lies we know of.
And when confronted with the truth, what do you do?
You resort to name calling, what can I say?
Oh come on - surely you’ve heard of non-racist slaveholders?!
(SMH)
“Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you statement (the north fought for money) is correct is that worse than fighting to defend slavery?
Let’s review.
In 1861 the Confederacy had a constitution that provided for slavery. The CSA president took an oath to defend its constitution.
In 1861 the United States had a constitution that provided for slavery. The USA president took an oath - twice - to defend its constitution.
During Lincoln’s War both the USA and the CSA fought to defend their constitutions which provided for slavery.
But only one of the two nations added a slave state to their countries after the actions of the Great Emancipator.
This will all be explained away in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Well the states had to be readmitted after the Civil War so the Congress at the time must have recognized they had left. Of course they wouldn’t recognize that today...
;-)
Congress never recognized that the rebel states left. States that had been in a state of rebellion were forced to rewrite their state constitutions and undergo a formal re-admittance as a condition of surrender.
In addition to the eleven Southern states which actually voted in 1861 to secede and join the Confederacy, the Confederacy claimed sovereignty over Union states or territories of Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia, New Mexico and Arizona.
West Virginia is the state jeffersondem sooooooo cleverly thinks was admitted to the Union as a slave state.
In fact, Lincoln's 1862 condition for admitting WVA was that it must free its slaves the same way other Northern states did, gradually.
West Virginians agreed to Lincoln's condition in 1863 and voted to ratify the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in early 1865, the seventh of 27 states to ratify at the time.
Of course, Jeffersondem knows all that, he just likes to pull our chain on it.
” . . . as usual, you completely ignore the substance, and pick at low hanging fruit”
Your comment reminds me of a saying they used to have in Florida: “Yankees are greener than citrus and twice as easy to pick.”
“So you simply cannot dispute the facts of history, except by lying about them”
Just like a leftard. Confronted with the truth, he accuses the other of lying.
“I’m embarrassed”
Not half as embarrassed as you will be if the truth ever penetrates your ignorant bigotry.
“You resort to name calling, what can I say?”
Well, you could say, “Accusing someone of supporting slavery is a worse insult than calling someone a despicable swine, especially when one is called a despicable swine for accusing someone of supporting slavery. Therefore, when I castigate someone for the despicable swine insult and give someone else a pass for the worse insult, I am a narrow-minded hypocrite.”
That’s what you could say, if you were sufficiently committed to the truth. I’m not holding my breath.
States themselves were not readmitted to the Union, since it was held they never lawfully left.
But former Confederates were prevented from voting for several years, and conditions were set for readmitting congressional delegations.
Those readmissions to Congress began with Tennessee in 1866 and ended with Georgia in 1870.
For several years Southern delegations included former slaves.
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.