Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hellbender
My original post was about the manifest statist sins of Abe Lincoln...

Yes, it's obvious your imagination knows no bounds.

Incidentally, I grew up and have lived almost all my life in the North, and have almost no Confederate ancestors.

A Copperhead. I should have guessed.

Everyone on both sides knew the election of Lincoln meant secession and war against the South.

Because of Lincoln's steadfast opposition to the expansion of slavery, his election certainly made Southern secession inevitable. But only the South could have their war.

The North invaded the South from the very beginning.

It is true that the South started losing territory almost from the moment they started the war, yes.

The North had an official policy at the highest level to commit war crimes against Southern civilians.

ROTFLMAO!!

I don't know where you get this crap about the Confederate Army kidnapping free blacks from PA.

I read it. See "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage" by Noah Andre Trudeau; "Retreat From Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign" by Kent Masterson Brown, or "A Regular Slave Hunt" by Ted Alexander which was in the September 2007 issue of North and South magazine. In fact, Brown's book also goes into great detail about the lengths Lee went to strip the Maryland and Pennsylvania countryside of everything usable and how his commanders would ride into towns and place levies on them for a specific amount of supplies or else he would burn the town. So please spare us your fairy tales on how noble Lee and Davis were. The documentation disputing it is there if you care to look.

You finally acknowledge that the South acted on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, then sneer that the South lost and the colonial rebels won.

It is true that both sides rebelled. But to equate the reasons why the Founding Father's rebelled against the King with the reasons why the Southern states rebelled against the federal government is ridiculous.

37 posted on 02/15/2009 2:48:14 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Oh, I see. The poor helpless Unionist North just had to invade the South and crush its independence, then impose a military dictatorship which ensured Republican domination for decades, because otherwise troops from Mississippi would have rampaged through New York, New England, Illinois, etc., re-enslaving blacks and setting up plantations.

And the Southern independence movement had nothing in common with the American Revolution, even though the Confederate constitution was almost identical with the U.S. one.

I think you need to broaden your horizons and find new heroes to go along with Lincoln. Just as baboon-face "had to" be a tyrant and unleash total war on his own former countrymen "to save the Union," King George "had to" unleash war "to save the Empire," FDR "had to" impose socialism and trash the Constitution "to save capitalism," and 0bama "has to" socialize the rest of the economy "to save" the country from an unprecedented crisis.

38 posted on 02/20/2009 5:52:07 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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