Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

[rexlunae]

Well that's wrong on every level. The south wasn't after Washington DC. They didn't seek to overthrow the government. They set to establish their own. Next...

As Town said, this isn't responsive to my point. They were trying to overthrow the governments...of Kentucky and Missouri, and replace them with new governments that would join the Confederacy, which in itself disproves the contention that they were motivated by concern for states' rights. The fact that they didn't attempt to conquer the whole Union is hardly relevant, and could just as easily be a reflection of strategy as anything else.

The Confederacy understood itself to be an institution dedicated to the preservation of the institution of slavery. In those terms, the invasion of these states made perfect sense. Both had large slave-holding populations, thus it seemed natural to the Confederates to take them to protect the institution from being snuffed out by a newly-abolitionist Federal government. But it makes no sense if the main cause was states' rights.

 

[drbrumley]

You can't call "next" while failing to meet his particular claims and misrepresenting the claim you do note.

rex didn't say they were trying to take over the Union, only that they had two additional stars indicating their desire for two states that did not follow suit and that at a point they invaded one of those states (Kentucky) which then called upon federal troops to resist.

Now that's not the act of a government attempting to exercise its right of self determination. That's the act of a slave confederation attempting to override the self determination of another state, which when you think on it makes sense. That's what they were ultimately in the business of doing.

LOL!!! Ok Town, I note your non objectivity but that's ok. But let me ask, why was Grant in Kentucky? Kentucky was "neutral" right?

 

[drbrumley]

As Town said, this isn't responsive to my point. They were trying to overthrow the governments...of Kentucky and Missouri, and replace them with new governments that would join the Confederacy, which in itself disproves the contention that they were motivated by concern for states' rights. The fact that they didn't attempt to conquer the whole Union is hardly relevant, and could just as easily be a reflection of strategy as anything else.

Not exactly accurate, but believe what you will.

 

[rexlunae]

Not exactly accurate

Specifically?

, but believe what you will.

I feel like you're telling yourself more than me. I'm relying on the evidence of history.

 

[rexlunae]

LOL!!! Ok Town, I note your non objectivity but that's ok. But let me ask, why was Grant in Kentucky? Kentucky was "neutral" right?

Repelling a Confederate invasion of the state. It's worth noting, though, that while historical revisionists like yourself have tried to rewrite the Civil War in terms of states' rights, no one argues that this was the Union's cause. So it's no dilemma for me or anyone else if the Union did invade Kentucky, which in point of fact was a response to Confederate actions. It's only a dilemma for people trying to claim that the Confederacy was all about states' rights. You can't be for states' rights 11/13ths of the time.

 

[Town Heretic]

LOL!!! Ok Town, I note your non objectivity

Declaring a thing isn't noting more than your hope, belief or bias, but you're a University of Florida graduate, aren't you? That's probably meeting your doctoral requirement there.

Else, my subjective involvement depends on the subject. Defending the South from unreasonable and unfair criticism? I'm in and passionately so. Advancing the romantic horsefeathers of the state's rights crowd when they hoist Confederate colors? No.

Rex has part II, so I'll leave that in his able hands. :e4e:

 

[drbrumley]

Repelling a Confederate invasion of the state.

Ok, I must ask what invasion? There is none on record until Sept of '61. So what invasion?

 

[rexlunae]

Ok, I must ask what invasion? There is none on record until Sept of '61. So what invasion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Heartland_Offensive

 

[drbrumley]

How can anyone take you seriously when you cant even get the timeframe correct. Sheesh!!!!!

 

[The Barbarian]

rex didn't say they were trying to take over the Union, only that they had two additional stars indicating their desire for two states that did not follow suit and that at a point they invaded one of those states (Kentucky) which then called upon federal troops to resist.

Now that's not the act of a government attempting to exercise its right of self determination. That's the act of a slave confederation attempting to override the self determination of another state, which when you think on it makes sense. That's what they were ultimately in the business of doing.

The slave state were looking to impose their own will by force. The only difference was they lacked the means to do it.

 

[drbrumley]

The slave state were looking to impose their own will by force. The only difference was they lacked the means to do it.

I keep hearing this, yet nothing to back it up. :idunno:

 

[rexlunae]

How can anyone take you seriously when you cant even get the timeframe correct. Sheesh!!!!!

Um...what? What timeframe? Does it matter when the Confederacy invaded Kentucky?

 

[fzappa13]

Um...what? What timeframe? Does it matter when the Confederacy invaded Kentucky?

... or Grant invaded Richmond? I guess it would matter if you were there but then none of us were ...

 

[rexlunae]

... or Grant invaded Richmond? I guess it would matter if you were there but then none of us were ...

I think you have missed the point. Why shouldn't Grant have invaded Richmond?

 

[fzappa13]

I think you have missed the point. Why shouldn't Grant have invaded Richmond?

Well, you seemed to have your knickers in a knot about invasions ... I guess one man's invasion is another man's righteous cause depending upon which book you read. Or which channel you watch. TH seems to be enamored with the "History Channel" ... what informational source do you place your trust in and why?

 

[fzappa13]

I don't think they're compatible, if you understand Marx.

Marx was a disciple of Hegel. Once you understand Hegel you'll look at the boob tube you worship a little differently. You are being manipulated. Continue to do so at your own expense.

Thesis ... Antithesis ... Synthesis ...

Figure it out bright boy.

 

[rexlunae]

Well, you seemed to have your knickers in a knot about invasions ...

That's a complete, and I'd almost say deliberate misreading. I understand perfectly well that invasions will happen in a war, and to the extent that the war is legitimate in the first place, the invasions are part and parcel. But that isn't the point. I'm saying that you can't build a confederacy on a foundation of respecting states' rights if you plan to forcibly annex states into it, which the Confederacy by their clear actions intended to do. What it demonstrates is that the Confederacy was not primarily concerned with the rights of the states.

The notion that the Confederacy was not, as the revisionists claim, primarily about states rights is demonstrated by the fact that they had a clear intent to annex states that didn't wish to be annexed by them.

 

[fzappa13]

That's a complete, and I'd almost say deliberate misreading. I understand perfectly well that invasions will happen in a war, and to the extent that the war is legitimate in the first place, the invasions are part and parcel. But that isn't the point. I'm saying that you can't build a confederacy on a foundation of respecting states' rights if you plan to forcibly annex states into it, which the Confederacy by their clear actions intended to do. What it demonstrates is that the Confederacy was not primarily concerned with the rights of the states.

The notion that the Confederacy was not, as the revisionists claim, primarily about states rights is demonstrated by the fact that they had a clear intent to annex states that didn't wish to be annexed by them.

Dear heart, I'm trying to say that trying to paint with a broad brush the intents and concerns of all involved in this conflict does a disservice to them all in that said concerns were varied by any honest account.

 

[rexlunae]

Dear heart, I'm trying to say that trying to paint with a broad brush the intents and concerns of all involved in this conflict does a disservice to them all in that said concerns were varied by any honest account.

That's definitely not what you were saying in your last post. Or at least you have the least obvious line of reasoning to get there possible.

I addressed that long ago. Of course, there were all sorts of individual motives for joining one side or the other, not least of which being the fact that a lot of rubes were told and believed that their livelihoods and their liberties depended on protecting slavery and that Lincoln is going to take their slaves away. That basic line of reasoning persists in the conservative movement today, in fact. Substitute guns for slaves and Obama for Lincoln, and you've got breaking news over at Fox. I'm talking about the intentions of the actual architects of the war, the people who planned it and executed it at the high level, whose actual motives are relevant, not the poor sap recruited to shoot at his cousin wearing the other-colored uniform.

You know what does a real disservice? Trying to rewrite history to make it more palatable.

 

[fzappa13]

That's definitely not what you were saying in your last post. Or at least you have the least obvious line of reasoning to get there possible.

I addressed that long ago. Of course, there were all sorts of individual motives for joining one side or the other, not least of which being the fact that a lot of rubes were told and believed that their livelihoods and their liberties depended on protecting slavery and that Lincoln is going to take their slaves away. That basic line of reasoning persists in the conservative movement today, in fact. Substitute guns for slaves and Obama for Lincoln, and you've got breaking news over at Fox. I'm talking about the intentions of the actual architects of the war, the people who planned it and executed it at the high level, whose actual motives are relevant, not the poor sap recruited to shoot at his cousin wearing the other-colored uniform.

You know what does a real disservice? Trying to rewrite history to make it more palatable.

Oh, I quite agree. I guess it just depends upon who we are cooking this meal for, doesn't it?