South Carolina: The Politics of Barbecue and the Battle of Piggie Park

The New York Times ^ | September 16, 2002 | Brent Staples

[Non-Sequitur]

But had Davis not fired then what would have happened? The fleet would have dropped of food and the stalemate would have continued. Davis had to force the issue and bring on the war.

[GOPcapitalist]

But had Davis not fired then what would have happened? The fleet would have dropped of food and the stalemate would have continued.

...until Lincoln sent the next fleet with soldiers to retake the thing by force. Lincoln made it perfectly clear that he was willing to do this and intended to do this. He would have kept provoking until the South responded and shot back.

[Non-Sequitur]

And had he done that then you would have been in the right and Lincoln would have been the aggressor. Instead Davis was the aggressor and the cause of a bloody war.

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[Aurelius]

"It's all about hate after all."

On your side maybe. People like you and justshutupandtakeit (that screen name tells the whole story in his case) are consumed with (probably justifiable) self-hatred which you must externalize. And so you find a politically correct" vent for externalizing it. Everyone sees through you; no one considers you worthy of being taken seriously.

[Aurelius]

"The tracts Mr. Bessinger had on sale also undercut flag apologists' argument that the Confederate flag is all about regional pride, not race. They claim that the flag came to be over the Capitol in the first place because it was put up for the centennial of the Civil War, then mistakenly left flying. In truth, it went up a year later, in 1962, after a conflict between the state and the Kennedy administration, which had urged the integration of the Charleston, S.C., hotel where a centennial convention was being held. When black delegates were refused, the convention was moved to a military base. The flag's appearance on the Statehouse dome was an endorsement of the segregationist creed."

"That pretty much says it all."

Except that the question remains: is there any truth in the NYT story about the Bessinger pamphlets? If the topic were the meaning of the 2nd amendment you guys would probably (correctly) give the NYT no credibility whatever. But when they are on your side you'll believe whatever they say.