Rubbish.
Ohioan: "Nowhere--apart from the baldest of assertions--do you actually paint a dynamic picture of the actual interaction between the parties.
Moreover, you conmtinually elevate form over substance. "
Total nonsense, what was your phrase?
- "arrogant pretense...parochial strut!"
Sure, go ahead and "dynamic" all you'd like, but here's what remained constant:
- Southerners voted for their Southern faction leader, Thomas Jefferson, against his Northern Federalist opponent, John Adams.
- Southerners voted for their Southern Democrat leader, Andrew Jackson, against his Northern opponent, John Quincy Adams.
- Southerners voted for Democrat President James Buchanan while Northerners voted Republican.
- Southerners voted for Democrat President Cleveland, while Northerners voted Republican.
- Southerners voted for Democrat President Wilson while Northerners voted for Taft or Roosevelt.
Ohioan: "Moreover, you conmtinually elevate form over substance."
More "arrogant pretense" and "parochial strut", I'd say.
Ohioan: "The pejorative terminology, which you prefer in an historic debate, where it is inappropriate, says far more about you than it does about those whom you denounce.
In some places it is particularly ridiculous. "
So what exactly is your problem with terms like "Fire Eater", "peculiar institution", "slaver", "copperhead", "doughface", "wide awakes", "slave power", " 'Ape' Lincoln", "Black Republicans", "yankees" or "rebels"?
Do you condemn everyone who uses historical terms, or only those defending the Union?
Ohioan: "For example, you refer to me as a "lost causer."
Please point to some place where I lament General Grant's victory.
As a patriotic Ohioan, I certainly do not..."
Sure, lots of Lost Causers objected to being called "neo-Confederates", so I switched to "pro-Confederates" and nobody objects to that.
If you wish to distinguish yourself from all other Lost Causers, I'm all ears -- distinguish away, FRiend.
Tell us all the many places where you disagree with and oppose other Lost Causers' arguments.
Feel free to use, or not use, whatever more colorful terms from that period (i.e., "Ape" Lincoln, "Black Republicans") you wish.
Ohioan: "I do believe that the South had the better legal argument in the war, for reasons you will find discussed in this thread."
If I get time, I'll go back and respond to your previous posts.
In the mean time, I gather you wish to make the Lost Causers' arguments without being yourself called a "Lost Causer", right?
Fine, first tell us where you disagree with and oppose our Lost Causers.
By the way, let us note here that we now have a third supposedly non-Southerner making the Lost Cause arguments, the others being self-admittedly DiogenesLamp and presumably jeffersondem.
Combined your voices drown out the real Southerners here, a fact of great interest.
After all, we can totally understand how a Southerner born & raised on the mother's milk of pro-Confederate Lost Causer mythology would not wish to throw it away on Free Republic.
But what excuse can there be for a Northerner who presumably learned the truth at some point would wish to discard it for a pack of Lost Cause lies?
Ohioan: "But where you really go overboard is with your Nazi argument.
The implied suggestion that we can not make judgments against a foreign political party that attacked us, for the reasons that it was very inappropriate to make moral judgments against a sister State in our Federal alliance, demonstrates your total obliviousness to the actual dynamics of the relationship."
Such a long-winded sentence hiding such a weak argument!
I get it: you don't like the Nazi argument, even if I generously offer to play the role of the Nazi?!
Fine, we can use any example, how about Tojo Japanese, who were our allies in the First World War?
Suppose I said to you:
- "Who do you claim ordained you to pass judgment on the posterity of
We respect the Japanese for their many virtues -- hard working, loyal, self-sacrificing, great attention to details, I could go on..., but we never apologize to them for our Dad's generation beating the cr*p out of theirs.
That would be ludicrous.
Just as with Confederates.
Ohioan: "It is not about your childish word games; there are clear and obvious markers, which have clear & obvious meaning in the context of interaction."
"Childish word games" describes your arguments here.
Ohioan: "For example Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gave each State effective total control of the suffrage--including Federal suffrage--within that State.
Who would be allowed to vote gets deeply into a species of political/social values, ethics--moral questions."
Which is why the 13th amendment was required to define limits on such state authority.
And your point here is what, exactly?
Ohioan: "For other examples of the importance of respecting the acceptance of an interaction based upon mutual respect, note Article I, Sec. 9; Article IV, etc."
And your point here is what, exactly?
Ohioan: "Or consider the solemn pledge, at the end of the Declaration Of Independence! (Incidentally, you quote the Declaration out of context, in a dishonest way"
Incidentially, I have never quoted the Declaration out of context, or in a dishonest way.
So your point here is what, exactly?
Ohioan: "You cannot reasonably postulate a continuing Union between the parties without assuming the mutual respect, which was the foundation.
Securing the 'Blessing of Liberty' to the Founders' posterity absolutely required same."
So you're trying to say something about "mutual respect"?
And that is what, exactly?
Ohioan: "As to the terrible effect of Reconstruction on the new Freedmen in the South, you might want to get a hold of a copy of the study by the -- I believe -- chief actuary of Prudential Insurance, Frederick L. Hoffman, in the 1890s, which documents the point"
And that point is what, exactly?
I'll repeat my point: Reconstruction ended as a result of the 1876 presidential election when Republicans agreed to pull Union troops out of the South, thus ending enforcement of the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments and allowing white Southerners to become what they most wanted -- Black Codes, Jim Crow, voting restrictions, KKK-type enforcement, ending Republican African-American influence in Southern legislatures and the US Congress.
Ohioan: "Or since you claim to be defending Abraham Lincoln, explain how the Thad Stevens Radical Republicans carried out his pledge of "with malice towards none," etc., to bind up the wounds. (There is an ocean of malice in the 14th Amendment, if you are not too busy to look.)"
I support the 14th amendment as originally intended, not as misused & misapplied by modern activist judges.
As for your alleged "malice", there was infinitely less malice in Union officials than there was in some ex-Confederates towards their newly freed ex-slaves.
But the bottom line question here is, why would an alleged Northerner like Ohioan voluntarily buy into a pack of Lost Causer lies, and if you haven't really purchased all of them, can you explain which ones you dispute & oppose?