On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[Henry]

Reading takes time. It's easier to employ the statist tactic of marginalizing those who do not bow down in worship at the alter of the state.

 

[Dead Duck]

For folks like you who talk before they read, I'll clarify.

The history came from a book written by Karen Stokes.

Book


And the article was written by Thomas DiLorenzo, a very bright Economics professor.

A write up on a book about the "Confederates" on a Lib site done by a libertarianism professor.
Find some better sources.



You can't just surround yourself with "Yes" men and expect everyone else to follow your ideals without research and a little common sense.

My God people - be your own person!

 

[Dead Duck]

Reading takes time. It's easier to employ the statist tactic of marginalizing those who do not bow down in worship at the alter of the state.

I agree that more worship is required.

 

[steveh_131]

A write up on a book about the "Confederates" on a Lib site done by a libertarianism professor.
Find some better sources.

What, exactly, are you arguing? He quotes the book directly. Are you saying the book is wrong or are you saying that he is misquoting it?

 

[Dead Duck]

I wouldn't click on that site knowing how bias they are.
I know nothing about the book author other than she writes about confederates, but the write up is done by a bias professor on a bias site.

Maybe if the write up was done by a non-bias person on a non-bias site, I might feel inclined to read it.







The word of the day is -"BIAS".

 

[mrjarrell]

Steve, unless it comes from Fox News or Glenn Beck it doesn't count. Surely you know that by now?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Man, this tit-for-tat gets tedious.

 

[Dead Duck]

Steve, unless it comes from Fox News or Glenn Beck it doesn't count. Surely you know that by now?

I don't even get Fox or Beck but I'm sure they wouldn't be as blatantly influenced as that Lew site you guys focus on.

I make my own judgment after researching all data acquired by fair sources that don't force their own agenda down my throat as if I was in prison.

 

[Henry]

I agree that more worship is required.

Well, start pressing those gun barrels against the backs of folks heads and force them to bow down and worship at the alter of the state.

 

[Dead Duck]

Well, start pressing those gun barrels against the backs of folks heads and force them to bow down and worship at the alter of the state.

That's not exactly who I was referring to.
True prayer doesn't require "gun barrels". You won't find any help with this subject on that site you frequent.

 

[Henry]

True union doesn't require gun barrels either.

 

[Hawkeye]

Well, start pressing those gun barrels against the backs of folks heads and force them to bow down and worship at the alter of the state.

Do you mean "ego" as in "alter ego" or truly worship in which case you meant "altar"?

 

[Henry]

Do you mean "ego" as in "alter ego" or truly worship in which case you meant "altar"?

Altar of course.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[steveh_131]

I wouldn't click on that site knowing how bias they are.
I know nothing about the book author other than she writes about confederates, but the write up is done by a bias professor on a bias site.

Maybe if the write up was done by a non-bias person on a non-bias site, I might feel inclined to read it.







The word of the day is -"BIAS".

You're impugning the integrity of a history book written by an expert because a well known and intelligent PhD economist wrote an article referencing it on a site that you don't like?

Lol. I mean, I'm all for arguing about history. But at least come up with an argument.

 

[rob63]

I can't distinguish if you are just trying to insult me or if you are actually confused. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

If I was transported to the 1860s, I would be at odds with whatever government I fell under. Slavery is disgusting, so is civil war. I would have opposed both. I would have opposed military conscription, federal overreach, silencing dissent, and so much more. Both governments were led by oppressive hypocrites.

Politically I would have wished for the union to stay intact, if possible, and pushed for a peaceful political solution at the federal level. If the South insisted on leaving then I would accept it, and insist that the North let the secession occur peacefully. At the state level, I would push for abolition of slavery. I would help slaves privately escape until the law caught up. In the war effort, I would have refused "service."

This would probably be getting rounded up by soldiers for speaking out, against the war. Possibly killed defending my home during martial law. Awesome.

Does this sound like I am a neo-confederate? Defending slavery?

Thank you for this. It is well thought-out and very logical. The difference between you and me is one of imagination. You automatically assume that if you were transported to the 1860's that you would be a white man living in the North and you decide the correct course from that viewpoint, whereas I imagine what it would be like to be a black man living in the South.

 

[Birds Away]

How goes the Civil War part II, fellas?

 

[cobber]

Well you're dishonest and juvenile.

This thread is so enlightening and entertaining, for other reasons. I'm keeping a checklist of logical fallacies, and the categories are filling up fast!

How goes the Civil War part II, fellas?

It appears the South may have a chance this time around.

I'm waiting for the thread on the French and Indian War... This Civil War stuff is coffee-house pontificating.

 

[firehawk1]

IMO after 30 pages, this thread has degenerated into nothing more than some standing in a circle, dropping their pants to prove who has the biggest one. It was somewhat interesting at first reading posts by both sides of the issue but now is just who can out Google who.

Again, IMO if someone in 2014 is getting themselves all worked up and wringing their hands over something that happened in the 1860's it's time to take stock in their life on what REALLY is important. If this subject is one of them, man I do feel sorry for you. Such a waste of energy as it is what it is, and one can't change what took place.

 

[steveh_131]

Thank you for this. It is well thought-out and very logical. The difference between you and me is one of imagination. You automatically assume that if you were transported to the 1860's that you would be a white man living in the North and you decide the correct course from that viewpoint, whereas I imagine what it would be like to be a black man living in the South.

The correct course of action should have nothing to do with your race.

This thread is so enlightening and entertaining, for other reasons. I'm keeping a checklist of logical fallacies, and the categories are filling up fast!

I'd be interested to see your checklist of who is guilty of these logical fallacies. I can think of one individual who should have multiple check-marks in each.

 

[Dead Duck]

My whole point here is the OP started this thread with an article from a questionable web site. Period.
That ends it for me. I won't read arguments and so called facts that come from such sites.

Find better sources. Duh

Your sources are not reliable and are racist. You already know this because you keep using them and defend their validity.