Quote:
Originally Posted by RamoneWooddell
My point was that your argument was mostly slurs and borderline insults flavored with arrogance. Remember that I was speaking to what really happened in regards to history and that the CSA is actually a separate occupied nation. The whole point is that the CSA didn't try to, they did separate. There invaded and occupied. And are still occupied today.
|
Allow me to collate all your claims about how I am arguing. My reasoning--or to you, not even qualifying as reasoning--is, so far:
--not logical
--not practical.
-- emotional
--aggressive.
--arrogant
--a lost cause
--mostly slurs
--borderline insults
Please add a few more if you like. Let's throw in "uses sarcasm and ridicule." IMO, the one making the outlying and extraordinary claims is the one who should make the more formal, better arguments. The one not making the extraordinary claim has the convenience of other casual cover--such as to be able appeal to peoples' common experiences and common knowledge--for example, the knowledge that the Confederate States of America today as "
actually a separate occupied nation" does not exist today upon anyone else's (except maybe your) published maps. Nor is CSA recognized by any other country. (Too simplistic, there?)
Fine, don't buy my earlier theory that "Laws may or may not mean much when it comes to all-out war." But if you only have legal documents to countervail what 600,000 lives already died to "settle," then maybe you ought to also argue that your CSA give back all their territories to the Native Americans, (and so on.) Or rather, that the Natives never were legally deposed by Spain, France, Britain, and therefore
are still the legitimate government, merely "occupied" today.
Quote:
|
might I add arrogant and aggressive. I see things have changed little in 150 years.
|
A few things have changed in 150 years. Here's what your first CSA Vice-President had to say in 1861, concerning the other Constitution which his (your?) side
tried to replace, but ultimately could not.
<<...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away...
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
>>
--CSA Vice President Alexander Stevens, 1861
Threaded Mode
