WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You forgot what president ordered mass executions of native Americans.
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.Your post has that "ends justify the means" taste to it. Just curious. Do you feel that way?
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.
I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?
SNIP I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?
I would have had no problem with being two separate countries. No different than Canada is a separate North American country. I am surprised Lincoln stopped at just the south. If not for the war, and the war on Native Americans he probably would have tried to force Canada, and Mexico into the Union.
You forgot what president ordered mass executions of native Americans.
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.
I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?
I would have had no problem with being two separate countries. No different than Canada is a separate North American country. I am surprised Lincoln stopped at just the south. If not for the war, and the war on Native Americans he probably would have tried to force Canada, and Mexico into the Union.
(Commenting on the ideas in general; not addressing the author of the quote in particular.)
Hmmm. So much for Robert E. Lee's declaration that he could not take up his sword against his country.
Glad for one country? Not me. It was never intended to be "one country". Well, it was not sold to the populace as one country when it was being pitched, at any rate. See the Anti-federalist Papers for commentary and prediction of what would happen if the constitution went into effect. The self-styled Federalists wrote oh-so soothing words. Read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Then decide for yourself who was right.
As early as 1870, one commenter wrote that the constitution has either given us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Meaning, the fedgov was already an overbearing monster by that time.
The key reason this is "one country" is because of that overbearing monster. So, no. I'm not glad.
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.
I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?
btw, thanks svg, et al., for providing your learned perception(s) of the definition(s) on of some of similar meaning words. i for one, wouldn't have differentiated country verse nation.
ipse
It is what it is.
I am grateful for my liberal friend because he never fails to remind me of how devious some folks are at redirecting conversations away from facts into emotional manipulation in order to allow the liberal to..... feel... superior.--Requested deletion of post by original submitter--
Just had a discussion with a liberal friend about Lincoln that moved into talking about slavery. When I asked if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he tried to evade the question by talking about the immorality of slavery itself. When I wouldn't allow him to evade the question by redirecting the discussion into an area he wanted giving him control of the conversation and pressed him to stick to the topic and answer the question he accused me of shutting him down and not listening to his answer.
Again I pressed him to answer if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he became quite irate and said that yes, the North had the right. But when I asked him why he said he answered my question and wasn't going to talk about it anymore.
Ahhhhh.... liberals. Do exactly what they accuse you of and then.... feel.. so self righteously vindicated.
And yes, that conversation actually happened just about a half hour ago in my kitchen.
SNIP [Sen. Vallandigham's] speech to congress "Executive Usurpation" points out greatly the dictatorial acts of Lincoln.
Here's a link..... https://books.google.com/books?id=n...e&q=Executive Usurpation vallandigham&f=false
KoskalakaMany love him or hate him. Some see him as being right for the time to save/preserve the union, which I believe was his mission/goal.
That he broke rules, ignored laws, and created powers where there had been none is amply in evidence.
Whatever your feelings, the union was preserved. Might something else have been effective, worked. We'll never know.
I anticipate this thread will cleave members into opposing groups with little good, outcome/results.