CNN declares-the-constitution-racist

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which of course ignores the fact that Lincoln wanted to place protective tariffs to unheard of levels that would have greatly harmed the south economically.

Still muddying the waters and protecting the Insurrectionist cause against the United States of America?

If you consider facts muddying the waters then yes, I suppose I am.

Yes, certain added facts can and do muddy the waters of any debate. Not all facts are relative to an argument, and some facts are meant to demean, deflect, and deceive, rather than offer debate, and deconstruction of an argument.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Still muddying the waters and protecting the Insurrectionist cause against the United States of America?

If you consider facts muddying the waters then yes, I suppose I am.

Yes, certain added facts can and do muddy the waters of any debate. Not all facts are relative to an argument, and some facts are meant to demean, deflect, and deceive, rather than offer debate, and deconstruction of an argument.

Luckily, Lincoln supporting tariffs doesn't demean, deflect, or deceive, but rather illuminates the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not nearly to the extent you would wish, KevinKennedy. Once again, read the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens in its totality, along with paragraph nine. The leaders of the Confederacy disagree with your analysis.

 

[Oddball]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc]YouTube - Nullification: Interview with a Zombie[/ame]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not nearly to the extent you would wish, KevinKennedy. Once again, read the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens in its totality, along with paragraph nine. The leaders of the Confederacy disagree with your analysis.

One speech from one man doesn't define what every leader of the Confederacy thought or believed. You can point to Stephens' speech, and I can point to Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where slavery is never mentioned but tariffs play an important part.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you consider facts muddying the waters then yes, I suppose I am.

Yes, certain added facts can and do muddy the waters of any debate. Not all facts are relative to an argument, and some facts are meant to demean, deflect, and deceive, rather than offer debate, and deconstruction of an argument.

Luckily, Lincoln supporting tariffs doesn't demean, deflect, or deceive, but rather illuminates the issue.

touche!

a relevant muddying of the waters. I like that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not nearly to the extent you would wish, KevinKennedy. Once again, read the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens in its totality, along with paragraph nine. The leaders of the Confederacy disagree with your analysis.

One speech from one man doesn't define what every leader of the Confederacy thought or believed. You can point to Stephens' speech, and I can point to Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where slavery is never mentioned but tariffs play an important part.

The speech is echoed in dozens of other contemporary accounts of the time, KK.

Paperview has repeatedly destroyed your point of view in a dozen threads.

That you disagree means no more than a soul stating that his body is not dead when he has been decapitated. Your argument was decapitated by PV a long time ago.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not nearly to the extent you would wish, KevinKennedy. Once again, read the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens in its totality, along with paragraph nine. The leaders of the Confederacy disagree with your analysis.

One speech from one man doesn't define what every leader of the Confederacy thought or believed. You can point to Stephens' speech, and I can point to Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address where slavery is never mentioned but tariffs play an important part.

The speech is echoed in dozens of other contemporary accounts of the time, KK.

Paperview has repeatedly destroyed your point of view in a dozen threads.

That you disagree means no more than a soul stating that his body is not dead when he has been decapitated. Your argument was decapitated by PV a long time ago.

Kevin is loathe to view his heroes as what they were --- traitors and insurgents. They declared war on the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They were that because they lost, not simply because their principles were wrong. However, their principles, and KK's interpretation of them, are wrong also.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were that because they lost...

Maybe God was not on their side?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe because the common rank started deserting in their thousands after Atlanta in September 1864 and in their tens of thousands after Sherman's March To The Sea.

 

[Sallow]

How exactly did CNN declare the (US, I suppose) Constitution, racist?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How exactly did CNN declare the (US, I suppose) Constitution, racist?

stop being serious. you're dealing with the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB