dagblog - Comments for "Jim Webb vs US Grant"

History's obviously not a

mojopriest — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:15:06 +0000

History's obviously not a subject you are strong at champion.
1. the war between the states was not initially about slaves- in fact when it became one of the causes of the Union during the war many Union soldiers wanted to stop fighting.
2. Grant was no great president, his presidency has probably been the most corrupt in history. Furthermore, he manufactured a war against the Native Americans (in which Custer died) to justify stealing the Black Hills, which begs the question- what sort of a country puts the picture of a corruption tainted war criminal on their $50 note?

I am not unable to address

oleeb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:04:02 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

I am not unable to address your nongermane point. Quite the contrary. But that is not the subject. You are simply trying to change the subject and I'm not going to go along with you. Since you dont' have the slightest idea where I am from your attempting to ascribe "typical northern behavior" to me is pretty funny.

Did you know that there were more southern men enlisted in the Army of the United States of America during the Civil War than were ever a part of Lee's army of northern Virginia? My point here is that there was no shortage (as Grant made clear) of loyal southern men who opposed treasonous insurrection. Thus, those who chose treason on behalf of slavery's preservation were well aware of the cause for which they fought.

Northern proto-liberals have

Marquis de SeaToShiningSea — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:42:11 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

Northern proto-liberals have way too much tied up in being morally superior to their southern neighbors.

So you are unable to address

Marquis de SeaToShiningSea — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:40:10 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

So you are unable to address the issue of responsibility for racism. This is a typical northern behavior and it is very offensive to those who have experienced the stain of being called racist.

May I make a humble

CVille Dem — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:36:41 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

May I make a humble suggestion? The war you are arguing about is more than 100 years old. We have more important stuff to talk about.

Are we going to strike Iran based on more lies?
Are we going to be complacent about the fact that the "war" in Iraq was sold to us knowingly based on a pack of lies?

This is 2008. Could we please direct our ire in the right direction? Is that too much to ask?

Also Ian, I do not and have

oleeb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:35:37 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

Also Ian,

I do not and have not in any way disparaged the way the United States treated those who rose up against our nation. I have simply and quite plainly pointed out that those who did so committed treason by taking up arms against the US and they knew that they fought on behalf of and in defense of maintaining human slavery all of which, as a matter of fact and not opinion, is absolutely true.

Whether your DNA is Yankee

wwstaebler — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:01:54 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

Whether your DNA is Yankee or Reb, read these books:
1) by David Hackett Fischer -- Albion' Seed: Four British Folkways in America; and
2) by Shelby Foote -- The Civil War.
Each of these volumes is a mesmerizing page turner that will surprise you, no matter what your alllegiance. When you have read all four, then feel free to make categoric statements.

Again, you try to change the

oleeb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:14 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

Again, you try to change the subject and thus obfuscate the truth.

The point is that those who took up arms against the United States did so on behalf of the defense and preservation of slavery. They did so in full knowledge that, that was the reason for the war regardless of their personal reasons. It is simply beyond question that this is true. Your attempt at redirecting the focus is not germane.

The truth is not malicious

oleeb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:35:30 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

The truth is not malicious nor is it uncharitable. They took up arms and waged war against the United States of America. There is no other name for such an act of armed insurrection. Here's the definition of treason from the American Heritage Dictionary -

trea·son (trē'zən)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.

In the Civil War song "The Union Forever", part of the refrain was:

"Down with the traitors and up with the stars!"

Again, it isn't malicious or uncharitable to call something by it's proper name. It is malicious and quite uncharitable to the truth and to history to try and call something it is not which is precisely what all the apologists for the treasonous insurrection against the United States engage in whether intentionally or not.

Obviously the American

oleeb — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:25:22 +0000

In reply to Jim Webb vs US Grant

Obviously the American revolutionaries were traitors to England and the British crown. Of course! And they were well aware of it just as those who took up arms against the United States knew full well their actions were treason.