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

Skip to comments.

Our Historically Challenged President. A list of distortions [Victor Davis Hanson]
NRO ^ | June 11, 2009 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 06/11/2009 4:49:30 AM PDT by Tolik

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last
To: Amos the Prophet
In short one side sees things in black and white the other can't because it scares them to face eternity.

Thank you for the enlightening and erudite response.

41 posted on 06/11/2009 8:55:32 AM PDT by Recon Dad (Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - MARSOC DAD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
I am glad to see this article...would the MSM, pundits and left ever let up had President Bush been so historically challenged?

I do have to take VDH to task though....technically "Civil War" is a misnomer...probably started by some newspaper describing what the editor thought was happening. The South didn't want to "take over" the North, they simply wanted fair taxes or they would secede from the Union. It was a War of Tariffs or a War Between The States or the War of Northern Aggression. Take your pick, but a Civil War it was not.

42 posted on 06/11/2009 9:21:06 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

This is a call to pay his history teachers more money. They apparently didn’t have enough to teach him real history.


43 posted on 06/11/2009 12:46:26 PM PDT by dcf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: yoe
"technically "Civil War" is a misnomer...probably started by some newspaper describing what the editor thought was happening. The South didn't want to "take over" the North, they simply wanted fair taxes or they would secede from the Union. It was a War of Tariffs or a War Between The States or the War of Northern Aggression. Take your pick, but a Civil War it was not."

Sorry pal, but you are obviously deeply confused by somebody's lunatic propaganda.

Here is an entirely reasonable definition of "civil war." Note there is no sense in which the War of Southern Rebellion does NOT fit the definition.

"A civil war is a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region, or to change government policies.[1] It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars result in large numbers of casualties and the expenditure of large amounts of resource. A civil war involves two-sided violence; for example, a massacre of civilians by the state is not a civil war. Similarly, less intense forms of societal conflict, such as riots or social movements, are excluded from the definition.[2]"

44 posted on 06/14/2009 1:48:50 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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