Posted on 02/24/2003 10:15:11 PM PST by Aurelius
Thoroughly discredited? I don't think so. Some careless but superficial errors in his book were cited. That hardly qualifies as being "thoroughly discredited".
I see what you mean.
"DiLorenzo has been posted on FR in the past, and thoroughly discredited by reasonable people."
Yes, I understand your qualification perfectly. "reasonable people" means people that agree with you. But, DiLorenzo's book will inevitably be analysed by objective analysts. And the conclusion will be that Di Lorenzo is right. But, you can change your screen name and avoid the resulting embarrasement. Dumb as you are, you may not be too dumb to do that
Your ignorance is showing tonight. A rebellion is an attempt to replace one government with another. The southern states did not rebel. They seceded and created a new nation. When one nation (such as Germany) invades another such as Poland) it is an invasion.
Lincoln's invasion os the south was an invasion. Get over it.
When a wife separates from an abusive husband, is it appropriate for the the abusive spouse to use force to coerce the abused spouse back to the home? Of course not.
If the people of California raised a reasonable rationale for secession and wanted to secede from the union, I would not shed a tear. In fact, I think it would improve the country. You assume that secession would have destroyed the Union. Maybe. More likely than not, the CSA and the USA would have reunified over time. Slavery probably would have died a natural death. With the rise of mechanized agriculture, there would have been no economic need to keep slaves. However, the forces of abolition would have brought an end to the despicable institution far earlier.
In addition to the catastrophic loss of life, the War, created economic ruin, poisoned race relations and gave rise to an enormously more powerful federal government. Many suggest that our country would have been better served if Lincoln had simply let the South go its way.
Congratulations, you finally got something right.
No, the two words would be Thomas DiLorenzo. Horsesh*t and DiLorenzo have become synonymous.
Constitutionally the southern states never left the Union so there was no invasion.
When a wife separates from an abusive husband, is it appropriate for the the abusive spouse to use force to coerce the abused spouse back to the home? Of course not.
When a wife walks out on her spouse is it appropriate for the spouse to walk off with joint property and fire a couple of shots on her way out the door?
More likely than not, the CSA and the USA would have reunified over time.
There is absolutely nothing to support that? Having walked out why would the south want to return to what they saw as Yankee domination? Why would the North want the south back badly enough to give them any sort of advantage?
Many suggest that our country would have been better served if Lincoln had simply let the South go its way.
Many believe that our country would have been better off if the south had not launched its rebellion.
Given the narrowness of President Bush's win you could say that about every single state that he carried.
Even Rockwell has to quote this properly. The powers of the federal government derived from the convention delegates elected by the people of each state, not chosen by the government of each state.
This means, as the SCOTUS has recently reminded everyone, that citizens of the US are DUAL citizens, being citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
With regards to the state governments and secession, the Union is like a marriage: you can't just say, "I'm bailing" and walk out without the other party having a say.
IMHO this is the correct position, but I can also see the reasonability (if not the correctness) of the positions of Lee, Jackson and Davis. That's why the civil war was such a tragedy.
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.