Rob's House

Fair enough. When I kicked down his door with a gun in my hand he started shooting.

In one of MY houses? Not quite. In this scenario he was in his own house and I came marching up his front walk, kicked down the door, and started shooting.

I think you see the problem with that logic, but I've not commented on the battle flag specifically so I'm not sure what you're getting at. But the distinction matters a lot. Do symbols of the American revolution represent the issues that precipitated the revolutionary war or do they represent sovereignty and independence? That would be kind of like if my wife left me and moved in with someone else so I march over there with a gun and have a shootout when they refuse to hand her over. Then I say she forced my hand because I needed to preserve our union.

I thought I addressed that pretty clearly. I draw a distinction between the reasons for SC's secession and the war itself.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at, but I agree with this.

I wasn't addressing any of those issues. I was pointing out how painfully naive and childish Magpie's argument about Lincoln's motivation was.

I know that guy, and what he said doesn't support Magpie's argument at all. Personally, I was never terribly impressed with Ayers, but I don't see too much in that article to take issue with other than it seems to take it as a given that the initial cause for secession is indistinguishable from the reasons for the war itself. I don't agree with his assertion that slavery would have otherwise continued into the 1960s either.

I can't tell if you're just throwing out straw men or if you're really that bad at comprehending pretty straightforward comments. Either way, it's been entertaining watching you go full gatorman. Please continue. Maybe later you can tell us about how we went into WWI to make the world free for democracy, or how we got into WW2 for humanitarian reasons, or how we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis.

What's cute is your naivete. Your version sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher with a major in education would say. I've talked at length with multiple historians of all different persuasions who have forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and not one of those people has ever attributed Lincoln's actions to a belief in, or a desire to see, the equality of "African Americans". Your argument seems to be that because slavery was the core issue of the war (which I'll accept for the purposes of this argument) that it necessarily follows that Lincoln was on a moral crusade for racial equality. That's quite a leap across a logical canyon you have yet to bridge. You've discounted all other possible motivations out of hand without further explanation. In short, no serious person I've ever encountered discusses this topic in such simplistic absolutes as you.

That's why when he emancipated the slaves it was only in the territories that had seceded and not the ones that were under his jurisdiction. He was ok with allowing their continued denigration of "African Americans." Tell us the one about how Lincoln saw "African Americans" as his equals again. Your take on this is so cute.

A little touchy. You seemed to suggest we were all pussyfooting around the big issue. I was pointing out that some of us have taken it head on and you knew it. I didn't realize you were just referring to Tom. Cool, thanks.

Lincoln didn't free any American citizens. He invaded a sovereign nation that was no longer under his jurisdiction. The issue is clearly too complex and you clearly too idealistic, emotional, and obtuse to understand it. I doubt any education could enable you to see it anyway other than through your very narrow and simplistic prism. 2 things: 1. Respek for the way you've argued in this thread. 2. Can you provide a source to where the info about the southern slave trade escalated throughout the 19th century? It's somewhat contrary to what I thought and I'd like to follow up on it.

And we went to Iraq to give the Iraqis freedom.

I already addressed this, you read and responded to it, and you're now acting as though you had not.

If you think Lincoln went to war because he was morally opposed to the slavery of blacks who he saw as equal then you're not only ignorant, you're !@#$ing stupid.

If you're familiar with Magox then you know he's a pragmatist and that's basically his position on everything.

Conventional wisdom isn't the same thing as basic historical knowledge, and you and others are either too stubborn or too stupid to grasp the distinctions that are being presented. For me, it isn't that I'm not familiar with the information you're presenting or the position you're advancing; it's that I also understand "the rest of the story." But your desperate need to cling to the yankee version of history that was apparently spoonfed to you by your government schools reminds me of fanboys who desperately need to believe their favorite player is the best.

It's their way of waving the white flag with defiance.

Nice. Call anyone who doesn't accept your bull **** a racist like a good little liberal.

Go for it dude. Some may think it absurd to comment on things you're uneducated about and disinterested in, but it's really your choice.

So the court of the conquerors said the conquerors were in the right. Well I guess that settles it. That's pathetic.

The substance of your argument aside, claiming someone who won an award said this so it must be true is about as weak as it gets. Deference to authority arguments are inherently weak, but this is extremely weak even among those.

Then maybe you shouldn'comment on it. Maybe it's a topic you aren't terribly informed about. It sounds like you have unquestioningly accepted conventional wisdom as fact, and the questioning of that conventional wisdom makes you uncomfortable. If you want to share your insight it helps to have some. TGreg has taken a similar position to yours but has actually added something of value to the conversation.

And you're entitled to your opinion as well, though you've done little to support or even explain it.

I never said they didn't see themselves as superior. Most people in positions of authority see themselves as superior. And today the logistics may not make secession practical, but if we could split off and have a separate country in the south I'd be all for it. You guys can keep northern VA. Sorry if the truth disrupts your fairy tale comfort zone. Of course we can't say for certain that slavery would have ended within a specified time frame, but you can't say it wouldn't have either. Not with any certainty.