Republican Primary

[Scott_Lafrance]

As I’ve pointed out before, Jefferson, Monroe and Adams all took military action without a formal Declaration of War.

DiLorenzo is the Neo Confederate in chief. That would be like taking Paul Krugman’s writings as the “truth” about Austrian School economics.

DiLorenzo is a historian who is entitled to his opine, but he is in the VAST minority, (and a bit of a revisionists, IMHO).

Oh, you forgot to mention that Lincoln upheld the “all men are created equal” of our Declaration of Independence, which some states weren’t willing to uphold.

Unfortunately, DiLorenzo does a much better job of citing and documenting his facts than you do. I’ll take his word, because he can back it up with more than opinion and hot air.

 

[kubark]

As I’ve pointed out before, Jefferson, Monroe and Adams all took military action without a formal Declaration of War.

DiLorenzo is the Neo Confederate in chief. That would be like taking Paul Krugman’s writings as the “truth” about Austrian School economics.

DiLorenzo is a historian who is entitled to his opine, but he is in the VAST minority, (and a bit of a revisionists, IMHO).

Oh, you forgot to mention that Lincoln upheld the “all men are created equal” of our Declaration of Independence, which some states weren’t willing to uphold.

I already dealt with “Jefferson, Monroe and Adams” in an earlier post so there is no need to correct you again here.

“Dilorenzo is the Neo Confederate in chief” can be roughly translated as “Dilorenzo is correct but I, scipio337, cannot refute his facts, so I will instead resort to ad hominems.”

“VAST minority”??? Truth is not a matter of consensus and the facts stand on their own.

 

[stevegravy]

IMO Lincoln and the governments behavior during the civil war is exactly to be expected from governments that collectively perceive an existential threat. It was a life and death struggle for the country as they saw it.

That Lincoln trampled on the constitution is not remarkable. What is remarkable was re-asserting it and the general rule of law that was relatively quickly restored after the war. And i know relative is subjective.

 

[scipio337]

I already dealt with “Jefferson, Monroe and Adams” in an earlier post so there is no need to correct you again here.

“Correct me”? Legend in your own mind, perhaps? There was no formal Declaration in either of the cases. Period. No amount of “yes but’s” can change that fact.

The Civil War was different, in that the CSA wasn’t a recognized foreign nation, but a belligerent power. Oh yeah, and they attacked Fort Sumter first.

“Dilorenzo is the Neo Confederate in chief” can be roughly translated as “Dilorenzo is correct but I, scipio337, cannot refute his facts, so I will instead resort to ad hominems.”

“VAST minority”??? Truth is not a matter of consensus and the facts stand on their own.

No, it’s roughly translated to “Di Lorenzo is entitled to his opinion”. Are all opinions equally valid, in your view?

Would you consult Krugman for an unbiased book on the history of Austrian economics?

Truth is not a matter of consensus, but its usually a good place to start to get an unbiased sample.

See “confirmation bias”.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

IMO Lincoln and the governments behavior during the civil war is exactly to be expected from governments that collectively perceive an existential threat. It was a life and death struggle for the country as they saw it.

That Lincoln trampled on the constitution is not remarkable. What is remarkable was re-asserting it and the general rule of law that was relatively quickly restored after the war. And i know relative is subjective.

The fact that the southern states wanted nothing to do with the northern states (hence the fact that the seceded) means that they posed absolutely NO threat to the north. None, nada, zero.

Yes, I am sure southern citizens would look with relativity on being forced to endure northern privations at the point of a bayonet “re-assertion and general rule of law”.

 

[scipio337]

I already dealt with “Jefferson, Monroe and Adams” in an earlier post so there is no need to correct you again here.

“Dilorenzo is the Neo Confederate in chief” can be roughly translated as “Dilorenzo is correct but I, scipio337, cannot refute his facts, so I will instead resort to ad hominems.”

“VAST minority”??? Truth is not a matter of consensus and the facts stand on their own.

BTW, here’s all 3 posts that have you reference Jefferson in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=10306122

In which one did you “correct me”?

 

[stevegravy]

The fact that the southern states wanted nothing to do with the northern states (hence the fact that the seceded) means that they posed absolutely NO threat to the north. None, nada, zero.

Yes, I am sure southern citizens would look with relativity on being forced to endure northern privations at the point of a bayonet “re-assertion and general rule of law”.

This is all true. No one can argue against it.

I believe the treat to the North consisted of halting the development of a single North American Empire. Great Briton wasn’t doing much to develop Canada. An independent Southern Confederacy could really nix Northern politicians ambitions. It was true then as it is today whoever controlled the Mississippi valley would control the continent. The north wasn’t going to let that slip away without a fight. (Union forever, houses divided aganst itself, free slaves was BS for public consumption what we call the MSM today.)

And I am only commenting on the*** relatively ***bloodless aftermath of a very brutal civil war compared to the atrocities normally witnessed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is all true. No one can argue against it.

I believe the treat to the North consisted of halting the development of a single North American Empire. Great Briton wasn’t doing much to develop Canada. An independent Southern Confederacy could really nix Northern politicians ambitions. It was true then as it is today whoever controlled the Mississippi valley would control the continent. The north wasn’t going to let that slip away without a fight. (Union forever, houses divided aganst itself, free slaves was BS for public consumption what we call the MSM today.)

And I am only commenting on the*** relatively ***bloodless aftermath of a very brutal civil war compared to the atrocities normally witnessed.

As long as you say “after”. The people of the South generally wouldn’t consider the actions of William Sherman so. Had the south won, he surely would have been hanged as a war criminal.

 

[_Abyssinia]

CNN have canceled their March 1st debate in Georgia after Romney and Ron Paul cancel.

 

[estesbob]

As long as you say “after”. The people of the South generally wouldn’t consider the actions of William Sherman so. Had the south won, he surely would have been hanged as a war criminal.

How many Southerners were hung as war criminals after the rebellion was put down?