Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
Invoking Godwin's law here.
I don't care if the called themselves the United Pinheads of States Rights, the effect was the same.
They attempted to dissolve the indissoluble. Even your hero Lee, who this thread was started to honor, said that secession was treason. That the Union was indissoluble.
The Confederacy was a bunch of squabbling children. South Carolina and Georgia BOTH threatened to secede FROM THE CONFEDERACY!
The Confederaxy would have dissolved into a cottection of Balkin-like states eventually. The United States of America was threatened, no different than if the states were attacked today by Mexico. There were many loyal Americans in the south who did NOT want to secede.
And...wrong again!
The point was not Nazi's and you know it, but just had to play the "gotcha" card.
I'll use Germany instead. Hell, I'll use WWI Germany and France. Sorry to rob you of your debate point.
Thanks. I just pinned you down. You posted the same old stuff you always do - find some new material.
I post to share and educate. You can rob all my posts, I don't copyright.
Are you going to post some source material or the same old cut and paste rehash?
"Today, you will find no more patriotic an area than the South, and probably more American flags per capita than NJ."
Your thick-headedness has never been more apparent!
Where in the above quote does it say that NJ is not patriotic? I simply observe that it is not possible for them to be more patriotic than the south....AS patriotic is possible, not more.
Unlike you, Jersey, I don't feel the need to question anyone else's patriotism. You clearly learned nothing from your time in the South.....fortunately, most of the folks I know that are moving here from New Jersey (more than a few!) appreciate the South.
You should probably stick close to the turnpike, though.
I'll source it for you. Not that you'll look.
J.L.M Curry, "Civil History of the Government of the Confederate States, with some Personal Reminiscences", p42,44
I'll trust primary source material over your slanted opinion of American history.
Great post.
Southern New Jersey isn't bad in some places.
"The Confederaxy would have dissolved into a cottection of Balkin-like states eventually. The United States of America was threatened...."
Jersey, Jersey, Jersey......we'll never know, will we?
It is equally plausible that the North, understanding their folly and the limitations of federal power written into the constitution would have come around to the correct (constitutional) way of thinking and later reaffirmed the 10th amendment and reconciled with the South without war.
As it was, they revoked the 10th amendment and government hasn't stopped growing since, nor will the federal government stop growing until it is forced to do so, probably under another threat of secession or equally dramatic event.
This thread is about American history. Not applicable.
Aha! So they were on their own?
But, but, but, I thought you were saying Lincoln was just invading his own country and asking countrymen to attack one another, not that he was invading separate sovereignties! Which was it?
Balkanized like 1861 New York City Mayor Fernando Wood openly advocating secession to remain a neutral party in dealing with north and south.
North Carolina issues Ordinance of Secession 20 May 1861
Virginia issues Ordinance of Secession 17 April 1861 (ratified 23 May, 1861)
"Balkanized like 1861 New York City Mayor Fernando Wood openly advocating secession to remain a neutral party in dealing with north and south"
You have an impressive command of historical events, and an ability to pointedly articulate them. Do you teach history (other than here)?
Incoming FReepmail
>So that the people would be equipped to be in a well regulated militia
So if it read "well educated children, being necessary to the prosperity of a capitalist nation, the right of the people to possess and read books, shall not be infringed." you'd argue that only kids could have books, eh?
What part of "the right of the people to..." don't you understand? (Look up dependent and independent clauses in a grammar book [though by modern standards, there's admittedly an extra comma after "arms" it doesn't change the meaning.])
I don't know what delusion you are operating under as to who I am but your wrong.
You claimed I was employing a fallacy of logic. You used gibberish like "proving a negative" when I asked "How can you claim destruction of the United States was not the goal?". So to prove your lack of understanding of logic I asked you if it was illogical to suggest that Germany's goal was the destruction of England (then I switched to France when you employed the Godwin's law red herring).
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.