Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jb2000
Well, I suppose that doesn't change the fact that the word is not a constructive addition to the discussion. That Superbelt (Edited to fix a misaken identity in my first post) used it doesn't change that assessment, that it had nothing to add. By the way, I was asking more in response to Tarl's post not yours (sorry for the confusion...pay it no mind).
|
Constructive, no. However, it's quite revealing of the mindset and lack of accurate historical knowledge of those denigrating the Confederacy in this thread.
Quote:
|
I refer you, however, to my response to you in which I asked what all the quotes were about the right to sovereignty, when it appears that most folks here don't disagree with the concept of the right to secession.
|
It would have been more accurate to have added the word "anymore" after the word "disagree."
Superbelt, in post #24, made the claim that the South betrayed their country. When his statement was proven false, he quickly changed his story to the position that they didn't secede in the way "Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union." I pointed out that this is inaccurate as well, and it is pretty [edit: "much"] my basis for the following statement: How can a person be labeled a "traitor" or a "criminal" or "dishonorable" for exercising their legal rights?
Quote:
|
Why is that, because you say so? I think we've been having an interesting debate over just that, but noone from any perspective has brought up anything that does what you claim. Are you one of those who says 'my side has some evidence so we must be 100% right without question!' ? I would hope not.
|
My response is based on this interpretation of the above: you're unsure that Lincoln was a traitor to the Constitution.
Lincoln ignored the right of the states to secede (a condition some states stipulated before they would sign on), suspended Habeas Corpus, made a shambles of the 9th and 10th amendments, proclaimed that Southern states couldn't have slaves (but Northern ones could), made plans to ship slaves out of the US, and made war against women, children, and the elderly by destroying their food so they would starve. Don't forget, according to Lincoln, those were citizens of HIS country. How much more do you need?
I hope you're not one of those who clings to their opinion in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
|
I think Shani has brought up some wonderful items, which shed some real light on the matter and I think all can learn something from. Now if your eager to find a clincher, I'm sure you could take them as such, but in light of the evidence and thoughts brought up around the table it clearly isn't.
|
"Why is that, because you say so? I think we've been having an interesting debate over just that, but noone from any perspective has brought up anything that does what you claim. Are you one of those who says 'my side has some evidence so we must be 100% right without question!' ? I would hope not."
Quote:
|
I won't deny your right to being offended by the word 'fuckwad'. It's inappropriate and demeaning. But it hasnothing to do with the debate at hand, and means nothing in the context of the issues we are talking about.
|
I'm very unsure why this was brought up again, but in an effort to get back to the topic of the thread, my "clincher" would be the following.
When I lived in another town, a movement was underway to change the name of a street to "Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd."
Some people and businesses on this street opposed the move. They did not like the thought of having the name of a documented philanderer and plagiarist in their address.
Would those who support the eradication of references to the Confederacy side with the residents and businesses? Or is it only minorities that are allowed to be offended?