[central_va]

You posses an average to below average IQ. How do I know this? Because all I was doing was defining CORRECTLY defining the terms of the debate. I was not passing any value judgement on the North's or South's cause bellum or political stand, I was just defining the two major political parties philosophy at the time ( mid 19th century ). You could give them any name you'd like: Party A and Party B. The fact remains, as I have proven by simply posting the definition of the word conservatism and you should agree, that the Democrats were the Conservatives and the Republicans were the Liberals i.e., the change agents.

Someone with highly refined debating skills and a high IQ would see that this is true, agree to it and proceed to defend the Republican cause. For some reason you cannot perceive the Republican Party racialism in the cultural milieu of the time.

You should also realize that agreeing to the proper terms that I laid out would not delegitimatize the liberal Republican cause. It simply sets the table correctly. You need to convince me that their cause, the radical change at the time, was justified in the mid 19th century.

You are low brow loser, an infantile debater.

[rockrr]

I don’t need to convince you of anything. In fact, I doubt that anything short of a .308 round would change your mind. But that’s OK because you do serve a purpose. You illustrate the vacuity of your lost cause.

Don’t go changing general!