Church Shooting

[boyst]

A couple wants a divorce because one of them cheated on the other. Their catholic priest says they aren't allowed to divorce for any reason. The couple joins a Protestant church who allows them to end the marriage citing adultery.

 

Was the above conflict about the couple's right to divorce or whether cheating is a valid reason?

I just read this three times. I still have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

 

What does the church have to do with the contract of marriage? What does the boogeyman up in the sky have to do with marriage?

[K-9]

Again, someone throwing up a straw man. Only to your credit, I don't think you're trying to do so, I think you honestly don't get the point so I'll give a brief explanation, hopefully for the last time.

 

Lincoln didn't want secession, but once it happened he could either allow it to happen or he could could take military action to stop it. If you think he went to war primarily to end slavery rather than preserve the union (empire) then, sorry for being blunt, but you're a !@#$ing fool, and few of any respected historians of any persuasion agree with you.

 

And your bit about counties that voted against secession would only be relevant if those counties moved to separate from their states and Davis sent troops in to prevent that. Only even then the analogy fails because state governments were fundamentally different from the federal government. Either way, it's tangential and if you want to go down that rabbit hole you can do it alone.

 

Edit: And to Max Fischer I'd like you to take note of the bolded part. THAT is what an ad hominem attack looks like.

 

You guys should pay me tuition.

They did. So please answer the questions put forth.

... In May, seizing the new momentum, Governor Harris and the legislature declared the state's independence, made a military alliance with the Confederacy, and began raising an army to defend the state from Union invasion. To validate their actions, the legislators called another referendum for June 8. On that date, approximately 105,000 Tennesseans voted for secession, while only 47,000 voted against, but East Tennesseans voted more than two-to-one (33,000 to 14,000) to stay with the Union, indicating an enormous anti-secession and anti-Confederacy pocket east of the Cumberland Plateau. Even as the state proceeded to join the Confederacy, Scott County announced that it was declaring independence from the state, and delegates from several East Tennessee counties met in Greeneville to draw up a petition to the legislature to allow East Tennessee to form a separate state. Secessionists viewed these county and regional secessionists as traitors and soon sent the state army to "occupy" the hostile counties. ...

 

 

I don't think it's tangential given all the hypocritical rhetoric about "states rights" as it pertains to the rights of the people to set their own course of destiny. I find it interesting that confederate states were subjecting their own citizens to the same oppression they themselves were rebelling against.

 

And I don't think strawman means what you think it means. Many of your posts include the same revisionist rhetoric spouted from these organizations since their inceptions. It's a legitimate question put forth to ascertain bias in the discussion as an understanding of that bias may help to inform the debate.

[K-9]

Been meaning to post my rejoinder on the subject of Lincoln's views on slavery, too.

 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincolnedited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Quincy" (October 13, 1858), p. 276.

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincolnedited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (March 1, 1859), p. 370.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.

"I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this question (slavery). They have constantly brought forward small cures for great sores---plasters too small to cover the wound. That is one reason that all settlements have proved so temporary---so evanescent." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 15.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1858), p. 376.

"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, neither has any just occasion to be angry with the other. " The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to John A. Gilmer" (December 15, 1860), p. 152.

"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I did say, at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (July 17, 1858), p. 514.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincolnedited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death---to find new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Letter to Williamson Durley" (October 3, 1845), p. 348.

"So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Fragment on Slavery" (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

"If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 501.

"Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fragment on Free Labor" (September 17, 1859?), p. 462.

I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that 'while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the Acts of Congress.' If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it. Lincoln's Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1864.

"We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by thus fostering Human Slavery and proclaiming ourselves, at the same time, the sole friends of Human Freedom." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (October 4, 1854), p. 242.

"Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

Edited June 28, 2015 by K-9

[Rob's House]

They did. So please answer the questions put forth.

I don't think it's tangential given all the hypocritical rhetoric about "states rights" as it pertains to the rights of the people to set their own course of destiny. I find it interesting that confederate states were subjecting their own citizens to the same oppression they themselves were rebelling against.

 

And I don't think strawman means what you think it means. Many of your posts include the same revisionist rhetoric spouted from these organizations since their inceptions. It's a legitimate question put forth to ascertain bias in the discussion as an understanding of that bias may help to inform the debate.

Interesting. I didn't know that tidbit about E TN. It's still tangential because the US government was a pact among the states, the state government was not a pact among the counties, and even if it were all that would mean is that TN was hypocritical.

 

Your argument was a straw man because I never argued that secession was Lincoln's goal.

 

And your rationalization of your ad hominem attack is flimsy. You marginalize a group (whose positions I'm not specifically familiar with, but which I'm certain you don't know or understand), then you associate me with them to draw the conclusion that my position must be flawed by association. Instead of attacking the substance of my argument you attack the person making it toinvalidate it.

 

You should work on self-awareness. Your version of events is not as obvious or simple as it seems to you. The only reason the revisionist union-written mythology on the topic seems unquestionable to you is because it's what you grew up thinking and what you were told by parents and teachers - basically everyone you trusted to know and teach you the ways of the world. The same reason people believe so strongly in the centuries old mythology of their invisible man in the sky that they'll kill and die over it.

[boyst]

Interesting. I didn't know that tidbit about E TN. It's still tangential because the US government was a pact among the states, the state government was not a pact among the counties, and even if it were all that would mean is that TN was hypocritical.

 

Your argument was a straw man because I never argued that secession was Lincoln's goal.

 

And your rationalization of your ad hominem attack is flimsy. You marginalize a group (whose positions I'm not specifically familiar with, but which I'm certain you don't know or understand), then you associate me with them to draw the conclusion that my position must be flawed by association. Instead of attacking the substance of my argument you attack the person making it toinvalidate it.

 

You should work on self-awareness. Your version of events is not as obvious or simple as it seems to you. The only reason the revisionist union-written mythology on the topic seems unquestionable to you is because it's what you grew up thinking and what you were told by parents and teachers - basically everyone you trusted to know and teach you the ways of the world. The same reason people believe so strongly in the centuries old mythology of their invisible man in the sky that they'll kill and die over it.

western NC was also a pro union area that did very little to support the Confederacy. There was a Confederate hospital about 10 miles from my farm, this hospital barn still stands. Past Davie County it was almost all pro union. Most of Appalachia was more union leaning then southern leaning.

 

I read about this at my county museum. I can't source it.

 

You can see the barn on Google earf. Google Hampton road Lexington, NC. It actually takes you to Richard Childress' house - NASCAR mogul - go west approx 1 mile and 1/4 mile south of Hampton road in a field beside a wood is the barn.

[K-9]

Interesting. I didn't know that tidbit about E TN. It's still tangential because the US government was a pact among the states, the state government was not a pact among the counties, and even if it were all that would mean is that TN was hypocritical.

 

Your argument was a straw man because I never argued that secession was Lincoln's goal.

 

And your rationalization of your ad hominem attack is flimsy. You marginalize a group (whose positions I'm not specifically familiar with, but which I'm certain you don't know or understand), then you associate me with them to draw the conclusion that my position must be flawed by association. Instead of attacking the substance of my argument you attack the person making it toinvalidate it.

 

You should work on self-awareness. Your version of events is not as obvious or simple as it seems to you. The only reason the revisionist union-written mythology on the topic seems unquestionable to you is because it's what you grew up thinking and what you were told by parents and teachers - basically everyone you trusted to know and teach you the ways of the world. The same reason people believe so strongly in the centuries old mythology of their invisible man in the sky that they'll kill and die over it.

No, you implied that secession was the pretext needed by Lincoln to go to war to save his "empire." That is just a ridiculous assertion. It's right up there with "Lincoln "tricked" the South into firing upon Ft. Sumter" as a pretext. From a Commander in Chief and Constitutional duty perspective, he had all the pretext he needed when the Confederacy seized federal military installations and other property in the months leading up to Ft. Sumter. Not to mention the issue of thousands of armed US military personnel renouncing their oath to defend the United States of America and defecting. You have little respect for the sheer amount of political pressure he was under to "do something" before Ft Sumter and the amount of constraint it took not to respond earlier.

 

Not surprised you would pooh-pooh the Tennessee example. It doesn't fit the narrative of the neo-confederate movement, whether you are a member of an organization that fosters it or not. As for knowing about and understanding these organizations, it isn't a difficult task given the large body of work they put out in their efforts to sanitize history and further recruitment. I have more respect for authors like John V Denson who, while flawed in his thinking, at least tries to honor the rigors of historical research, while other discredited "historians" like DiLorenzo do no such thing.

 

I have to laugh at the suggestion that I and others who've enjoyed this history for so long, just could never get past the macro history lessons of our parents and elementary school; that all learning just stopped at "Lincoln saved the Union and freed the slaves." Again, that's what the insecure neo-confederates have to believe. That we are all just too ignorant of what "really happened." I get that the vanquished don't get to write the history and it's interesting to speculate on what the narrative would be if things didn't happen as they did, but given the space in elementary history books and the time in a day teachers have at that level, it's no wonder that the two major social ramifications of the result would get first mention.

 

But make no mistake about it, what I learned about Lincoln and the Civil War in elementary school doesn't even begin to inform my knowledge.

 

Here's the thing though, as much as he is deified by people who never bothered to learn more, he has been demonized like no other president before or since. But if one is truly honest about the thousands of official government documents on record, all the speeches, all the letters and diaries, etc, etc, by the people who actually made the history at the time, the neo-confederate version of events doesn't pass academic and scholastic muster. It just doesn't stand up to the scrutiny and it all starts to read like desperate attempts justify a horribly miscalculated gamble by the south and her leaders that resulted in the devastation of her people.

 

Researching and writing about history cannot be done when one has a pre-determined conclusion of past events and what led to them. Indeed, you need to be willing to be led in a completely different direction if that's where the data takes you. Shoehorning events and quotes out of context weakens the argument. The vast majority of "revisionist Union written history" (whatever that is), has been written by scholars and those dedicated to the process of historical research and it stands the test of scholastic and academic review. So much information is available from the time, it's no wonder it stands up in the hands of those that respect the process.

 

I'm still waiting for a neo-confederate historian to sway academia and the accepted paradigm. We can start with one that refutes "Lincoln saved the Union" and "Lincoln freed the slaves." One should never give credit to one man, and I don't as he had plenty of astute advisers as well so I'll just say the policies put forth by his administration did both. And while that may be good enough for those not interested after 7th grade, I'm willing to be edified by a legitimate argument to the contrary. But hell, seeing as it's only 7th grade history and moms and dads telling kids the story, it should be easy for the DiLorenzos of the world to make the case.

 

In the meantime, another recently discovered example of the South and her "States Rights" hypocrisy:

 

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.

South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

[K-9]

...Lincoln didn't want secession, but once it happened he could either allow it to happen or he could could take military action to stop it. If you think he went to war primarily to end slavery rather than preserve the union (empire) then, sorry for being blunt, but you're a !@#$ing fool, and few of any respected historians of any persuasion agree with you. ...

 

 

Missed this earlier.

 

No, and as I've also stated previously, Lincoln's sole purpose for engaging in war, initially, was to preserve the Union. The historical record is VERY clear on this score.

 

However, the record is also clear that he was dead-set against slavery being established in new territory, which was at odds with the Confederate manifesto.

 

Bottom line is that he accepted slavery in the established slave states before the war and ending it there was never his given reason for going to war.

 

Ending it in the seceding states certainly became a war strategy later on though.

 

Are you under the impression that if the southern states never seceded that Lincoln, in the interest of preserving "his empire", would have invaded the south?

Edited June 28, 2015 by K-9

[Rob's House]

No, you implied that secession was the pretext needed by Lincoln to go to war to save his "empire." That is just a ridiculous assertion. It's right up there with "Lincoln "tricked" the South into firing upon Ft. Sumter" as a pretext. From a Commander in Chief and Constitutional duty perspective, he had all the pretext he needed when the Confederacy seized federal military installations and other property in the months leading up to Ft. Sumter. Not to mention the issue of thousands of armed US military personnel renouncing their oath to defend the United States of America and defecting. You have little respect for the sheer amount of political pressure he was under to "do something" before Ft Sumter and the amount of constraint it took not to respond earlier.

 

Not surprised you would pooh-pooh the Tennessee example. It doesn't fit the narrative of the neo-confederate movement, whether you are a member of an organization that fosters it or not. As for knowing about and understanding these organizations, it isn't a difficult task given the large body of work they put out in their efforts to sanitize history and further recruitment. I have more respect for authors like John V Denson who, while flawed in his thinking, at least tries to honor the rigors of historical research, while other discredited "historians" like DiLorenzo do no such thing.

 

I have to laugh at the suggestion that I and others who've enjoyed this history for so long, just could never get past the macro history lessons of our parents and elementary school; that all learning just stopped at "Lincoln saved the Union and freed the slaves." Again, that's what the insecure neo-confederates have to believe. That we are all just too ignorant of what "really happened." I get that the vanquished don't get to write the history and it's interesting to speculate on what the narrative would be if things didn't happen as they did, but given the space in elementary history books and the time in a day teachers have at that level, it's no wonder that the two major social ramifications of the result would get first mention.

 

But make no mistake about it, what I learned about Lincoln and the Civil War in elementary school doesn't even begin to inform my knowledge.

 

Here's the thing though, as much as he is deified by people who never bothered to learn more, he has been demonized like no other president before or since. But if one is truly honest about the thousands of official government documents on record, all the speeches, all the letters and diaries, etc, etc, by the people who actually made the history at the time, the neo-confederate version of events doesn't pass academic and scholastic muster. It just doesn't stand up to the scrutiny and it all starts to read like desperate attempts justify a horribly miscalculated gamble by the south and her leaders that resulted in the devastation of her people.

 

Researching and writing about history cannot be done when one has a pre-determined conclusion of past events and what led to them. Indeed, you need to be willing to be led in a completely different direction if that's where the data takes you. Shoehorning events and quotes out of context weakens the argument. The vast majority of "revisionist Union written history" (whatever that is), has been written by scholars and those dedicated to the process of historical research and it stands the test of scholastic and academic review. So much information is available from the time, it's no wonder it stands up in the hands of those that respect the process.

 

I'm still waiting for a neo-confederate historian to sway academia and the accepted paradigm. We can start with one that refutes "Lincoln saved the Union" and "Lincoln freed the slaves." One should never give credit to one man, and I don't as he had plenty of astute advisers as well so I'll just say the policies put forth by his administration did both. And while that may be good enough for those not interested after 7th grade, I'm willing to be edified by a legitimate argument to the contrary. But hell, seeing as it's only 7th grade history and moms and dads telling kids the story, it should be easy for the DiLorenzos of the world to make the case.

 

In the meantime, another recently discovered example of the South and her "States Rights" hypocrisy:

 

I said no such ****. I said Lincoln's primary objective when he invaded the south was preservation of the union, which is almost universally accepted by serious people. You're just whining because my use of the word empire made your pu$$y hurt.

[K-9]

I said no such ****. I said Lincoln's primary objective when he invaded the south was preservation of the union, which is almost universally accepted by serious people. You're just whining because my use of the word empire made your pu$$y hurt.

This is what you said:

 

You weren't right. You were painfully simplistic. The inability to distinguish between the cause of secession, the key issue that led to the war, and the cause of the war, Lincoln's desire to preserve his empire, is the flaw. But that's been discussed ad nausea in this thread so if you want to learn more about it the info's there.

 

How can that be construed to mean anything other than Lincoln, in his quest to preserve his empire, used the pretext of secession in order to do so?

 

This has become an absurd exercise. You refuse to answer pertinent questions and then insult people when pressed. There's a word for that, but suffice to say your history game is weak.

 

Let us know when you fit into the big boy pants and are able to debate issues in an honest fashion.

[Rob's House]

This is what you said:

 

How can that be construed to mean anything other than Lincoln, in his quest to preserve his empire, used the pretext of secession in order to do so?

 

This has become an absurd exercise. You refuse to answer pertinent questions and then insult people when pressed. There's a word for that, but suffice to say your history game is weak.

 

Let us know when you fit into the big boy pants and are able to debate issues in an honest fashion.

Your logic and comprehension is pathetic. How you derive your conclusion from that sentence is beyond me.

 

You've not raised pertinent questions. You've thrown out straw men and gone down tangents in an attempt to obfuscate when the point I've made is painfully clear to anyone who's not trying really hard not to get it.

 

I can only assume you feel a need to defend your image of "honest Abe" and his righteous war to end slavery because it gives you comfort, but it's bull ****. I hate to burst your bubble but that story about George Washington and the cherry tree...that's not real either.

 

If you can explain to me how the E TN situation or any of your other tangents is evidence that Lincoln's primary objective WHEN HE INVADED was the abolition of slavery, or that the primary reason for the confederate resistance to that invasion was to defend slavery then I'll be happy to address that. But I'll not waste time chasing you down irrelevant rabbit holes.

 

And do you really think if the south agreed to end slavery after secession but before the war that Lincoln would have chosen not to invade? Because if you're not saying that then I'm not sure what your point is.

[K-9]

Your logic and comprehension is pathetic. How you derive your conclusion from that sentence is beyond me.

 

You've not raised pertinent questions. You've thrown out straw men and gone down tangents in an attempt to obfuscate when the point I've made is painfully clear to anyone who's not trying really hard not to get it.

 

I can only assume you feel a need to defend your image of "honest Abe" and his righteous war to end slavery because it gives you comfort, but it's bull ****. I hate to burst your bubble but that story about George Washington and the cherry tree...that's not real either.

 

If you can explain to me how the E TN situation or any of your other tangents is evidence that Lincoln's primary objective WHEN HE INVADED was the abolition of slavery, or that the primary reason for the confederate resistance to that invasion was to defend slavery then I'll be happy to address that. But I'll not waste time chasing you down irrelevant rabbit holes.

 

And do you really think if the south agreed to end slavery after secession but before the war that Lincoln would have chosen not to invade? Because if you're not saying that then I'm not sure what your point is.

That's probably for the best when a weak position becomes untenable.

 

Your only point seems to be "Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery." That's been known since before the Civil War started. Was that new ground you were hoping to hoe? Or do you really think the sum total of everybody else's education on the matter is 7th grade history?

 

I don't think we can detach the question of slavery completely from his motivations, though. As I stated earlier, there was no way he was going to allow the expansion of slavery into newly settled federal territories.

 

Your counter-point seems to be "Lincoln only invaded the South to preserve his empire." One man's union is another man's empire, I guess. I can't find one Lincoln reference to saving an empire. This is just a regurgitation of the same specious argument made by the neo-confederate movement.

 

I won't hold out any hope that you'll answer my questions posed earlier. You may be literally incapable of it psychologically. To do so would force you to consider arguments that your accepted dogma can't reconcile. Quite the quandary.

 

I'll close my end of this debate by simply stating the wealthy Southern elite sold its populace on a risky gamble and it ended up costing them everything.

 

Previous ability of their leadership to compromise, as seen in the 1830s during the tariff crisis, was lost.

 

You can argue all you want that the south had a right to seize federal property and military installations.

 

Or that thousands of armed US soldiers who had forsaken their oaths and defected should have simply been ignored and not seen as a threat.

 

Or that 33,000 US citizens in Tennessee, now under confederate occupation, were no longer entitled to the protections guaranteed them by the Constitution they still honored.

 

Nope, you can just go on thinking that the great yankee tyrant of the North should have just ignored his own Constitutional obligations and let bygones be bygones while his constituency was demanding every day that he "do something."

 

Good luck in finding a history you are comfortable with.

[FireChan]

That's probably for the best when a weak position becomes untenable.

 

Your only point seems to be "Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery." That's been known since before the Civil War started. Was that new ground you were hoping to hoe? Or do you really think the sum total of everybody else's education on the matter is 7th grade history?

 

I don't think we can detach the question of slavery completely from his motivations, though. As I stated earlier, there was no way he was going to allow the expansion of slavery into newly settled federal territories.

 

Your counter-point seems to be "Lincoln only invaded the South to preserve his empire." One man's union is another man's empire, I guess. I can't find one Lincoln reference to saving an empire. This is just a regurgitation of the same specious argument made by the neo-confederate movement.

 

I won't hold out any hope that you'll answer my questions posed earlier. You may be literally incapable of it psychologically. To do so would force you to consider arguments that your accepted dogma can't reconcile. Quite the quandary.

 

I'll close my end of this debate by simply stating the wealthy Southern elite sold its populace on a risky gamble and it ended up costing them everything.

 

Previous ability of their leadership to compromise, as seen in the 1830s during the tariff crisis, was lost.

 

You can argue all you want that the south had a right to seize federal property and military installations.

 

Or that thousands of armed US soldiers who had forsaken their oaths and defected should have simply been ignored and not seen as a threat.

 

Or that 33,000 US citizens in Tennessee, now under confederate occupation, were no longer entitled to the protections guaranteed them by the Constitution they still honored.

 

Nope, you can just go on thinking that the great yankee tyrant of the North should have just ignored his own Constitutional obligations and let bygones be bygones while his constituency was demanding every day that he "do something."

 

Good luck in finding a history you are comfortable with.

I'd say it's been ~50-50 in this topic.

[Rob's House]

That's probably for the best when a weak position becomes untenable.

 

Your only point seems to be "Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery." That's been known since before the Civil War started. Was that new ground you were hoping to hoe? Or do you really think the sum total of everybody else's education on the matter is 7th grade history?

 

I don't think we can detach the question of slavery completely from his motivations, though. As I stated earlier, there was no way he was going to allow the expansion of slavery into newly settled federal territories.

 

Your counter-point seems to be "Lincoln only invaded the South to preserve his empire." One man's union is another man's empire, I guess. I can't find one Lincoln reference to saving an empire. This is just a regurgitation of the same specious argument made by the neo-confederate movement.

 

I won't hold out any hope that you'll answer my questions posed earlier. You may be literally incapable of it psychologically. To do so would force you to consider arguments that your accepted dogma can't reconcile. Quite the quandary.

 

I'll close my end of this debate by simply stating the wealthy Southern elite sold its populace on a risky gamble and it ended up costing them everything.

 

Previous ability of their leadership to compromise, as seen in the 1830s during the tariff crisis, was lost.

 

You can argue all you want that the south had a right to seize federal property and military installations.

 

Or that thousands of armed US soldiers who had forsaken their oaths and defected should have simply been ignored and not seen as a threat.

 

Or that 33,000 US citizens in Tennessee, now under confederate occupation, were no longer entitled to the protections guaranteed them by the Constitution they still honored.

 

Nope, you can just go on thinking that the great yankee tyrant of the North should have just ignored his own Constitutional obligations and let bygones be bygones while his constituency was demanding every day that he "do something."

 

Good luck in finding a history you are comfortable with.

 

That is the point. I never claimed I was trying to "hoe" any new ground. I said from the beginning my point was a simple one. You're the one who keeps building rows of straw men and throwing them at an argument you are now not only agreeing with, but claiming everyone's known since the second grade.

 

The point I was initially making was that symbols of the confederacy are symbols of more than just slavery and racism. That was met with simplistic notions that the war was fought over slavery and thus symbols of the confederacy are also about slavery. I made a point, that you seemed to grasp, two or three days ago. Them you jump on Max Fischer's coattails AFTER he understood the point I was trying to make - that although slavery was the issue that precipitated the war it was not the cause for which the South fought.

 

I have yet to understand what Eastern TN or anything else you've brought up has to do with it, or how I'm coming from a weakened position. I've stayed consistent and on point the whole time. Your misunderstanding of and subsequent extrapolation of a simple and relatively innocuous statement is not my responsibility. I'm still at a loss for what it is you're arguing.

[K-9]

 

That is the point. I never claimed I was trying to "hoe" any new ground. I said from the beginning my point was a simple one. You're the one who keeps building rows of straw men and throwing them at an argument you are now not only agreeing with, but claiming everyone's known since the second grade.

 

The point I was initially making was that symbols of the confederacy are symbols of more than just slavery and racism. That was met with simplistic notions that the war was fought over slavery and thus symbols of the confederacy are also about slavery. I made a point, that you seemed to grasp, two or three days ago. Them you jump on Max Fischer's coattails AFTER he understood the point I was trying to make - that although slavery was the issue that precipitated the war it was not the cause for which the South fought.

 

I have yet to understand what Eastern TN or anything else you've brought up has to do with it, or how I'm coming from a weakened position. I've stayed consistent and on point the whole time. Your misunderstanding of and subsequent extrapolation of a simple and relatively innocuous statement is not my responsibility. I'm still at a loss for what it is you're arguing.

I'm arguing that in the months before Lincoln ever took office, there were seizures by the confederacy of federal military installations and equipment, ammunition, and other government property along with the defection of thousands of armed US servicemen previously under oath to the United States of America. In the face of public outcries in the North, President Buchanan swore to uphold his Constitutional duty and protect and defend this property from this insurrection through all the powers granted him and then promptly passed the buck to the incoming Lincoln.

 

What this has to DO with it, as we've been discussing all along, is what "started" the war. The above, plus the 31,000 Tennesseans under occupation, compelled ANY president to perform his Constitutional duty. Any president would have been remiss and subject to charges if he didn't. Any president would have called for troops to quell the insurrection.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know. This was no insurrection. The states were merely exercising their "states rights" to help themselves to federal property.

 

Except that they weren't states at that point and the property wasn't theirs, regardless.

 

In what fairy tale is the seizure of military installations, ammunition, and equipment at the hands of thousands of defecting soldiers no longer loyal to their oath, considered anything less than a threatening act?

 

Never mind. I know.

[birdog1960]

Been meaning to post my rejoinder on the subject of Lincoln's views on slavery, too.

 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincolnedited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Quincy" (October 13, 1858), p. 276.

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincolnedited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (March 1, 1859), p. 370.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.

"I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this question (slavery). They have constantly brought forward small cures for great sores---plasters too small to cover the wound. That is one reason that all settlements have proved so temporary---so evanescent." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 15.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1858), p. 376.

"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, neither has any just occasion to be angry with the other. " The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to John A. Gilmer" (December 15, 1860), p. 152.

"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I did say, at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (July 17, 1858), p. 514.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincolnedited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death---to find new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Letter to Williamson Durley" (October 3, 1845), p. 348.

"So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Fragment on Slavery" (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

"If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 501.

"Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fragment on Free Labor" (September 17, 1859?), p. 462.

I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that 'while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the Acts of Congress.' If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it. Lincoln's Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1864.

"We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by thus fostering Human Slavery and proclaiming ourselves, at the same time, the sole friends of Human Freedom." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (October 4, 1854), p. 242.

amazing grace. amazing prose.

"Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

amazing grace, amazing prose. i don't think there has ever been a more eloquent president. if anyone misses his point here, it's from willful neglect. he died because of these statements and beliefs. people are still dying for them.

Edited June 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[K-9]

amazing grace, amazing prose. i don';t think there has ever been more eloquent president. if anyone misses his point here, it's from willful neglect.

The more serious willful neglect occurs when the just as eloquent words and amazing prose of the leaders of the Confederacy is missed on those who are literally incapable of seeing it for what it is.

[unbillievable]

I just read this three times. I still have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

 

What does the church have to do with the contract of marriage? What does the boogeyman up in the sky have to do with marriage?

It can't be any simpler.

...and there was no mention of God in the example.

[birdog1960]

The more serious willful neglect occurs when the just as eloquent words and amazing prose of the leaders of the Confederacy is missed on those who are literally incapable of seeing it for what it is.

pray tell… explain to me how they weren't traitors.

Edited June 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[K-9]

pray tell...

The manifest destiny of their desire to spread the institution of slavery to the new US territories, the Caribbean, Cuba, and Central and South America for starters.

 

You know, "States Rights."

 

Of course when Northern States exercised their rights to abolish slavery, allow black men to vote, made it illegal for the Southern gentry to bring their slaves with them to their states while on vacation, etc., well, lets just say not all states' rights are created equal.

Edited June 29, 2015 by K-9

[birdog1960]

The manifest destiny of their desire to spread the institution of slavery to the new US territories, the Caribbean, Cuba, and Central and South America for starters.

 

You know, "States Rights."

 

Of course when Northern States exercised their rights to abolish slavery, allow black men to vote, made it illegal for the Southern gentry to bring their slaves with them to their states while on vacation, etc., well, lets just say not all states' rights are created equal.

i'm missing the eloquence and amazing grace. perhaps i need to watch ken burns doc again.