tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post3711042934211894283..comments2024-01-15T20:15:13.053-08:00Comments on Saberpoint: A Point by Point Rebuttal of Donald Douglas on "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery"Stogiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05852841950131130696noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-32621184143195404062015-06-24T19:48:03.959-07:002015-06-24T19:48:03.959-07:00Donald, don't worry about killing all the roac...Donald, don't worry about killing all the roaches. Give up on this one. Ad hominem follows....A dynamic view of history isn't "the Chomper"'s goal. Position changes, compromise, bluff and internal politic are picked without proper context/reference and are used as a vessel for an extra shovelful of revisionist manure for you to wade through. It is hard for me to believe he can devote so much time and energy to defending the New Southern Myth without being compensated. This man isn't playing with a full dick (sorry deck--damned spell check).Non Descriptnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-74749655736293076282015-06-24T19:45:15.232-07:002015-06-24T19:45:15.232-07:001. I have described a "straw man" argume...1. I have described a "straw man" argument several times, specifically Livingston's argument that the North was racist just like the South. Again, I ask, who denies this? Tell me, who denies that Northerners were racist? The fact is Northerners did not own slaves in the 1850s and Southerners did. All this stuff about Northern racism, to say nothing of the lack of Northern efforts at emancipation, is a smokescreens. I've already addressed these points. You talk past my main points and focus on side issues that I have not addressed.<br /><br /><br />2. The Corwin Amemdment? Are you kidding me? I've repeatedly said that Lincoln was not out to free the slaves at the outset of the Civil War. And in fact, Lincoln's position was the same as the Republican Party platform. Lincoln was still at the point of trying to reconcile North and South to prevent secession. Again, he sough to prevent the spread of slavery to the territories and not out to abolish it in the Southern states. Abolition didn't become a war aim until 1863. None of that takes away from what Lincoln said repeatedly, especially during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, that he thought slavery violated inalienable rights as laid out in the Declaration. Comments that Lincoln made conceding Douglas' points, including so-called racist statements toward blacks, were political statements made in the heat of a campaign and designed to mollify critics. His larger philosophical positions were that slavery was an abomination and that blacks should be free people just like whites. Whether they lived together and intermingled is another story. These are all fact, Stogie, not opinion. The revisionism is found among the libertarian radicals who blame the start of the war on the North. Fact is, as I showed with the Huston article, protection of property rights meant the protection of the right to own slaves, and this meant also that government coercion would be used to enforce the slave regime. <br /><br /><br />3. I don't think you understand what I wrote about presentism. We are not in disagreement about what presentism is, and that today people bring their current morals to bear on the mores of the mid-1800s. My point is that Livingston himself used presentist arguments that violated his own criticism of modern observers. He did this throughout the essay. You do the same thing when you say the Republicans were racist, when you argue that they were more racist than Southerners. Racism was everywhere at that time and it just wasn't questioned because that's the way it is today. That's in fact the same decontextualizing I've been talking about throughout this discussion. Further, you've used Northern racism as a prevarication tactic to avoid the main points I've raised. Again, Northerners did not own slaves in the 1850s and Southerners did. That's the key difference and that difference is the foundation of the sectional split. <br /><br /><br />4. Who's more ideological than the other? Are you saying radical libertarian ideas are not ideological? Are you claiming that Livingston wasn't ideological? And I don't know what an ideology of "Northern tyranny" is. I've only heard the term bandied about among some of the more paleocons like Mike Tuggle. Moreover, you keep claiming that you've "won" the argument, but as noted claiming victory isn't a argument. Facts about Congress' powers and actions, the system of federalism and Supreme Court decisions, and the centrality of property and white supremacy in the SOUTH you've ignored altogether. You're projecting, frankly. Your last paragraph about the "ax to grind" is self description. Simple as that.<br /><br /><br /><br />5. Now, I'll ask again: Do you have anything besides Livingston to support your theories, because I've shredded that dude and you need to bring in additional firepower to bolster your side.DonaldDouglasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-39876957747589889612015-06-24T14:37:44.221-07:002015-06-24T14:37:44.221-07:00Donald, let's be honest: I kicked your ass in...Donald, let's be honest: I kicked your ass in this debate.Stogie Chomperhttp://saberpoint.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-2772881587594851442015-06-24T12:51:51.823-07:002015-06-24T12:51:51.823-07:00At this point, I don't think Stogie could get ...At this point, I don't think Stogie could get a raccoon. He's slinking back, not responding to further rebuttals. I've got some new posts in the pipeline and of course the news is dominated with conservative after conservative renouncing the Confederate Flag. Stogie's hunkering down!DonaldDouglasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-63743029921742507822015-06-24T07:43:16.399-07:002015-06-24T07:43:16.399-07:00Biff! Bam! Pow!
Get him, Stogie!Biff! Bam! Pow!<br /><br />Get him, Stogie!Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-38276418773151137892015-06-23T19:20:44.425-07:002015-06-23T19:20:44.425-07:00You attacked me, Adrienne. I'm responding in k...You attacked me, Adrienne. I'm responding in kind.DonaldDouglasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-77723209395683214392015-06-23T18:00:39.556-07:002015-06-23T18:00:39.556-07:00Why, yes - yes I did read it. Some of us have bet...Why, yes - yes I did read it. Some of us have better digestive systems than others. <br /><br /> I revel in being lame. And I know exactly where Rule 5 originated. Have you ever noticed that Stacy doesn't partake? <br /><br />I find it interesting that you saw fit to personally attack me when all I did was voice my opinion. Are opposing opinions verboten? You tend to do that quite a bit. I never attacked you or called you names, or said your blog was "lame." It is my practice to not visit blogs that post indecent pictures of women, or men, for that matter. <br /><br />I have never posted anything about or by Murray Rothbard.<br /><br />Sorry for wasting your time. Don't you have papers to grade, or something? <br /><br />P.S. I seldom respond to direct attacks and will not engage in further "discussion." One person attacking and insulting another person does not constitute a discussion. Have a nice life.Adriennehttp://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-66748455131260287952015-06-23T17:12:18.619-07:002015-06-23T17:12:18.619-07:00I still post "big boobs," which is part ...I still post "big boobs," which is part of the Rule 5 genre invented by Robert Stacy McCain. <br /><br /><br />And by the way, is your blog Adrienne's Catholic Corner, or was it? I stopped reading it for some reason, I think because is spread some of the same kind of racist libertarianism of the Murray Rothbard crowd. I could be mistaken, though. Maybe your blog is just lame.DonaldDouglasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22117033.post-82248429828347418142015-06-23T17:07:33.912-07:002015-06-23T17:07:33.912-07:00Before commenting I took the time to read Professo...Before commenting I took the time to read Professor Livingston's essay. I then read everything Mr. Douglas said on his blog. A blog, I might add, I quit reading many years ago because of his constant rather juvenile talk about "big boobs" and focus on scantly clad women, and such. Nice to see that he's toned that down quite a bit.<br /><br />I also read the Wiki entry for Professor Livingston. I am not a Civil War expert. However, I do have more than a passing interest in the subject and have learned from people who <i>are</i> Civil War experts. <br /><br />Everything Professor Livingston and Stogie have said is consistent with what I have learned about the Civil War. I see no evidence of Livingston being a "radical" or associating with other "radicals." <br /><br />All wars are fought over economics - no more, no less. While there may be other issues piggy-backing on the reasons for the war, ultimately it's all about money. The Civil War was not much different.Adriennehttp://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com