Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duty. Honor. Confederacy.
The Charlotte Post ^ | July 24, 2008 | Kimberly Harrington

Posted on 07/27/2008 7:52:45 AM PDT by cowboyway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 last
To: Sherman Logan
I have considerable respect for Walter Williams, but the column you point to is a considerable disappointment.

Why? Does the truth bother you?

Of course Douglass accused Lincoln of wanting to do bad things. He was campaigning against Lincoln, that's what politicians do in campaigns. As I'm sure you realize, an accusation does not constitute proof of guilt, it is merely an accusation.

If it was a baseless accusation, I would agree.

But politicians often have to expose the agenda of their opponent to define the difference between the two. For example, if McCain had any balls, he would accuse Obama of being a Marxist.

Do you agree that Obama is a Marxist?

I've never quite understood how those who believe Lincoln was a power-mad maniac manage to square this image with his actual life. He served a few terms in the state legislature, a single term in Congress, was unable to run for re-election because he stuck by principle rather than bowing to public opinion, then dropped out of politics entirely for almost 10 years. He didn't re-enter politics until he saw a looming threat that needed to be faced, the advance of the slave power and its threat to American ideals.


151 posted on 08/04/2008 7:09:09 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And you and I may disagree with that decision until the cows come home and that isn't going to make abortion illegal. Now is it?

But it doesn't make the court right either, does it.

How will I ever learn to live with a stigma like that?

Just keep drinking your Kool-Aid and you'll be fine.

The Supreme Court has limited gun ownership rights for decades.

Yes, the court, the presidents and the congress have been slowly stripping away our liberty for many years thanks to disHonest Abe, you damn yankees and the centralized authoritarian gubmint.

If you read the decision you'll note that Scalia endorsed the idea that 2nd Amemdment rights are not unlimited, and that the government can prohibit ownership of certain types of weapons.

So I can't have a boomer sub with nuclear capability. Hell, I couldn't afford to crew the thing even if I got a good deal on a used boomer.

But that's not the point and you know it. Restricting ownership of certain types of weapons by individuals is altogether different from repealing the 2A. Repealing the 2A will be the catalyst for registration and confiscation and massive gun control legislation from your beloved central politburo.

Future postings to you will probably be a lot like past postings to you - pointing out just how silly your opinions are.

Ha! This coming from a man(?) with his head buried so far up his ass that he can see his own tonsils.

152 posted on 08/04/2008 7:32:27 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Someone might want to point out to Williams that there were no presidential debates in 1860.

Perhaps you can offer your services to Mr. Williams since it is widely known that keyboard kommando, non-sequitur, is the foremost authority on all subjects.

And where do buffoons like you and Williams do your research on the rebellion.

Being called a buffoon in the company of Walter Williams by a fat, sloppy, basement dwelling, narcissistic keyboard kommando is a compliment. Keep em coming.

Oh, and I fixed your picture for you.

Thanks. But its your Kool-Aid so drink up.

153 posted on 08/04/2008 7:52:45 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: smug
But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride.

I agree with NS that we would have had more wars if the South had gained her independence as an outcome of the War of Northern Aggression because, if not for the Southern red states, the north would have become a communist country allied with the USSR, Cuba, et al, and we Southrons would have to fight them for our freedom.

Hell, we're fighting the damn yankees (Schumer, Obama, Kennedy, Kerry, Franks, etc.) for our freedom now and if Obama wins in November and the congress continues to be controlled by the damn yankee liberals, NS and his pals will finally see their dream of a socialist/communist USA come true.

154 posted on 08/04/2008 8:02:04 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Perhaps you can offer your services to Mr. Williams since it is widely known that keyboard kommando, non-sequitur, is the foremost authority on all subjects.

Probably not. I've found that you southron types will cling to any myth, no matter how often it is disproved. But of course you could end the conversation right off the bat by identifying just when these presidential debates that Williams spoke of took place. Can you do that?

Being called a buffoon in the company of Walter Williams by a fat, sloppy, basement dwelling, narcissistic keyboard kommando is a compliment. Keep em coming.

You do more every day to demonstrate the level of your buffoon-ness than anything I could say. So continue posting and you'll do that for me.

Thanks. But its your Kool-Aid so drink up.

No, no, no, it is the confederate kool-aid. Enjoy.

155 posted on 08/04/2008 8:20:37 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
But it doesn't make the court right either, does it.

In your opinion. And I might even agree with you on this one case. But your disagreement or mine doesn't change the fact of the matter. And you can continue to claim that the southern actions wer legal as well. That doesn't make them so.

Yes, the court, the presidents and the congress have been slowly stripping away our liberty for many years thanks to disHonest Abe, you damn yankees and the centralized authoritarian gubmint.

Yes you southron types will blame Lincoln for everything up to and including a rainy day.

156 posted on 08/04/2008 8:23:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: smug
More adult, hardly. But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride. The South lost their country and their independence.

The south lost something they didn't have in the first place. The U.S. would have lost lives and territory and property and a war. But look back through history at conflicts between countries, where 'nothing but size and pride' was lost and tell me how they got along. France and Germany. Israel and Egypt. England and Argentina. An end to the conflict would have left hard feelings between the two countries. And those hard feelings could easily have led to future conflicts and even more hard feelings.

The number of slaves at that time "off the reservation" so to speak, was substantial in many area's of the south. Humpty was too broken to put back together except by using those men that were in the CS army, and I doubt very seriously they could have been forced to fight to get back another man's property when they didn't believe they were fighting for that against the Lincolnite's. They would have simply replaced slavery then the same way they did 143 years ago.

Slavery was too ingrained into their culture and society. They rebelled to protect it, their economic livelyhood depended on it, and their society was built on it. It was not an institution that they would have given up lightly, and an independent confederacy would most likely have taken whatever steps necessary to protect it, and to replace the lost slaves through other sources.

Hardly, a study of the inner struggle of the Confederate states is one of resistance to federal authority.

A history of the confederacy was an example of how quickly a people give in to a central authority. During the war, the Davis government tossed the whole concept of states rights out the window. They seized the state's authority to control their militia by forcibly extending enlistments and instituting conscription. It stripped the population of their civil rights by suspending habeas corpus, instituting martial law throughout the country, seizing property for the war effort without compensation, requiring people to get government permission to travel, and in countless other areas. The population accepted these restrictions as a part of winning the war. And once the war was over, the Yankee bugaboo doesn't just go away. Now you have a wounded and pissed off North just waiting for revenge, and it would have seemed very prudent to continue the restrictions, for safety's sake. After all, there was no supreme court around to tell the government it couldn't. And if an independent confederacy had followed what you suggested and done away with slavery? Well, then there were all those suddenly free blacks to keep in line. You couldn't have them suddenly going where they wanted, living where they wanted, having the same rights as the white folk did. So restrictions would have had to continue, certainly on the blacks and to a lesser extent on the whites, to make sure none of them stirred up trouble. It is easy to see how an independent confederacy could have, and probably would have continued on the repressive path that marked its 4 years of existence. There was nothing that might have stopped it.

157 posted on 08/04/2008 8:40:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
It stripped the population of their civil rights by suspending habeas corpus, instituting martial law throughout the country,

When the Confederate Congress voted to give Davis a 6 months suspension of habeas corpus, several states immediately voted to nullify that heinous act in their state, it nearly brought down the Confederacy from within. The amount of none cooperation between the Governor's of the states and the Davis administration was unparalleled in American history, and actually shortened the war.

But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride. The South lost their country and their independence.

That statement is loosely taken from a note by General T. J. Jackson to his adjutant Sandy Pendleton telling him [Should the Republicans lose their war they go home fat with war profits to their big homes. But should we lose, we lose everything our country and our independence.] I hardly think had that war ended with a armistice or negotitated peace, it would have been Damn near impossible to talk either side into resuming hostilities for a long long time.
158 posted on 08/04/2008 9:23:28 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: smug
When the Confederate Congress voted to give Davis a 6 months suspension of habeas corpus, several states immediately voted to nullify that heinous act in their state, it nearly brought down the Confederacy from within.

But it didn't, did it? The suspension remained throughout the the war. The habeas corpus commissioners still threw people in jail. Martial law was still in place hundreds of miles away from the fighting. Travel passes were still required. And judicial protections still were non-existent. And somehow the confederacy stumbled on and the people accepted the loss of rights as necessary to protect them from the Yankees. And the likelyhood that the government would have continued to use those restrictions to protect the country from future threats from the defeated foe cannot be discounted.

The amount of none cooperation between the Governor's of the states and the Davis administration was unparalleled in American history, and actually shortened the war.

It didn't interfere in the conduct of the war as much as you would have us believe. The Davis government held sway over the confederacy. They had the army and their habeas corpus commissioners to ensure control. That didn't change in too many areas until the federal government restored U.S. control.

Should the Republicans lose their war they go home fat with war profits to their big homes. But should we lose, we lose everything our country and our independence.

Yes, well Jackson was a man with his own predjudices, and that sentiment is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. The Union soldier was fighting to restore his country. He wouldn't have written off defeat as mere lost profits. Any separation as the result of battle would have left the North embittered, as embittered as the defeated South was.

159 posted on 08/04/2008 9:48:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yes you southron types will blame Lincoln for everything up to and including a rainy day.

If you'll re-read my statement, I spread the blame around amongst all you damnyankees.

160 posted on 08/05/2008 6:05:58 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
If you'll re-read my statement, I spread the blame around amongst all you damnyankees.

You spread something all right. And not where most of it belongs - with Davis and the rebel leadership.

161 posted on 08/05/2008 7:27:35 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You spread something all right. And not where most of it belongs - with Davis and the rebel leadership.

Just keep clinging to your myths and flights of fantasy.

I'm sure that it goes well with endless supply of Kool-Aid.

162 posted on 08/05/2008 11:08:56 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Just keep clinging to your myths and flights of fantasy.

You are about the last person on this forum who should be accusing others of clinging to myths and flights of fantasy.

163 posted on 08/05/2008 11:26:08 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You are about the last person on this forum who should be accusing others of clinging to myths and flights of fantasy.

Have some more Kool-Aid.

164 posted on 08/05/2008 11:50:11 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson