There ARE honest people on the Left.

[pknopp]

PURE Hogwash. They are stacked up in $400/night hotel rooms from Scottsdale to NYC.

Asylum seekers, not illegals. You need to read better sources.

 

[mamooth]

Ah, typical faggot comeback, fake pop psychology, is also a clear evidence of deranged fetishism. Thanks for giving us more examples of your dementia and total reliance on peer approval and parroting.

This is now a standard Republican voter.

And the "normal" Republicans are all fine with that.

Dudley, thanks for so clearly illustrating the moral rot that afflicts conservatism now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The central, overriding issue of the Civil War was slavery. If the South refused to give it up, there would have been a Civil War anyway, even if they hadn't tried to separate. They would have had to have been forced to give it up.

Because we associate secession with being pro-slavery, we get the issues mixed up.

So, let's start from first principles: If all of the people of a geographic region of a country -- any country, not necessarily the US -- does not want to be part of the country any more, and wants to become independent, should it have that right, in principle?

There are at least three things which complicate the matter

(1) Technical problems: who gets the national government's movable property in the region that wants to leave, should it do so? What about national debts and pensions? These are things which can be settled, although they will provide lots of work for lawyers.
:
(2) Military considerations: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the separation of this region will have no negative military consequences for the country it's separating from. It won't open up a geographic strategic weak spot. The separating country will not ally with the enemies of the country it wants to leave.

(3) 'Remainers': I said 'all of the people' in the region, but in real life, it's never 'all'. (Even in the South, there were pro-Unionists, usually forcibly suppressed, eg the German immigrants to Texas who were refugees from the 1848 uprisings in Europe). For the moment, let's set that problem aside.

A fourth consideration, really a debater's point is the size of the region. Let's assume it's substantial, 'nation-sized' -- in other words, it's not a farmer and his family on 200 acres declaring independence.

So the question is: should the people in a region be forced, forever, to remain within a country they no longer want to be part of? Does 'consent of the governed' not apply?

Example: suppose -- a Leftist's nightmare -- Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, and various circumstances make it appear that the Republicans will remain in power for many subsequent elections, with large majorities in the House and Senate, appointing all the retiring Federal Judges -- and the entire population of California, Oregon and Washington want to separate and become their own nation -- perhaps without their 'Red' eastern counties. They offer to retain a strong defensive alliance with the remaining US -- just as the US and Canada jointly operate the NORAD air-space defense system.

Suppose further that this is a settled, serious, demand, not a passing emotional response to a Trump victory. (For an example of how this could happen, see Scotland in the United Kingdom, especially after the majority there decided to leae the European Union. When the Scottish National Party was first formed in 1934, it was a joke. It didn't even elect anyone to the British Parliament until 1967. Now it's the largest party in Scotland, and runs the place.

I would support their right to leave. I wouldn't advocate it -- it's like the right to divorce. If they really want to leave, and there are no military implications, and the status of 'remainers' is set aside (which it can't be in real life -- it's a separate argument, i.e. how small must a minority be before it should not block the settled desires of the majority?) -- if these things were true, I would support the of the 'Left Coast' to separate.

How about you?

Either way, it happened, 140,000 US military personnel died. You can look at whether it's about slavery, about states's rights, about this that or the other. But a person who waves those flags is someone who is supporting fighting against the federal government, it's not patriotic, it's not anything positive in the modern world.

I couldn't care less whether they leave the union or not, but do it properly.

 

[leftwinger]

Asylum seekers, not illegals. You need to read better sources.

Nice SPIN. Every one surrendered is claiming asylum. Millions. 200K per month. They need to be housed Fed etc. But you knew that. You're a commee spinner.....acting cool. Like a technicality provides the living for free.

 

[DudleySmith]

This is now a standard Republican voter.

And the "normal" Republicans are all fine with that.

Dudley, thanks for so clearly illustrating the moral rot that afflicts conservatism now.

You gimps are just sad little mentally ill tools, we can't help but pity you and institutionalize you.

 

[skye]

IMO there are not honest people on the Left (handful only 1 or 2 or 3)

There are only the most morons of morons on the Left.

 

[DudleySmith]

Nice SPIN. Every one surrendered is claiming asylum. Millions. 200K per month. They need to be housed Fed etc. But you knew that. You're a commee spinner.....acting cool. Like a technicality provides the living for free.

They're al coached to what to do, of course; commies and racists post entire articles in their newspapers on how to game the system here, which is why we need to restrict the number of cases the system can handle effectively. Let these gimps get the blame for the genuine cases that can't get through because of their callous disregard for the system and those genuine cases.

 

[DudleySmith]

Ha ha ha!!!! This is such a ridiculous statement that I almost don't feel like wasting my time refuting it. You probably believe Hitler loved the Jews, as well. Well, at least this silly attempt to pretend that the Civil War was not about slavery, shows that you (I hope) think slavery was a bad thing.

After the South was defeated, and the evils of slavery became commonplace, apologists for the slavocracy began to try to pretend that Southern secession was all about true federalism, vs wicked centralization. The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, later made a big deal about this. But that was later. At the time, he openly acknowledged what everyone knew, that the South wanted to secede because it feared remaining in the Union would eventually lead to the end of slavery (and they were right): Here's a conservative historian's assesment of Stephens

In 1861, in his famous “Cornerstone Address,” Stephens declared slavery to be the foundation of the new Confederacy. There is not a word about the limits of federal power in Stephens’s speech. He zealously maintained domination over the black race to be the new cornerstone of all future civilization. Rather than Stephens’s being sincere in his convictions, it seems more likely that the Confederacy’s defeat and the passage of the Civil War amendments forced him and other Lost Cause apologists to change their tune. Rather than proclaiming white supremacy to be the enduring truth of the human condition, they turned to arguments about federal overreach to justify secession.
[ Whistling Dixie - Claremont Review of Books ]

I'll let Lincoln speak for himself, in his wonderful Second Inaugural speech:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fellow-Countrymen:


At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of this great conflict which is of primary concern to the nation as a whole, little that is new could be presented.

The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.


On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.


One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."


With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, Lincoln was a smart man. There were several good reasons for not his saying, "The war is about ending slavery!" He wanted to actually end it, not just to posture about it. He knew that, if slavery were restricted to the South, that as time passed and more and more free states were added to the Union, the South would lose its great power in Congress. And he wanted to keep the border states from joining the rebels. And he wanted to divide the enemy camp, if possible. And he knew that slavery was on the way out all over the world, and perhaps the slave-owners would see reason and let themselves be bought out, as their British counterparts did.

All good lessons in smart tactics which patriots today could learn from.

lol his second inaugural speech? lol lol The one he made 4 years after he started the war???? you're just stupid, is all. He didn't have squat to say about slavery until 1863, and then it was only to try and cause a revolt in the south. Then there are all those other things he said. when he was starting the war, you know, the one in 1861.

WE can also note that Lincoln himself ordered slaves to remain on their plantations, without permission to leave without written permission form their owners, and those that tried to run were rounded up and put in 'contraband camps' and left to die from disease and starvation, same as prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps. OVer 90% of the 'freed' slaves remained in the South after the war. Your ilk never asks why that was, that's because you don't really give a shit, you just like to posture on the innernetz.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do, it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.- Abraham Lincoln

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles ****ens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.


He ran a White Nationalist ticket; they wanted no blacks in the new territories, period, slave or free,, same after the war was over. Illinois, his home state, toughened the Black Codes even more in the 1850s, along with other northern states. Most 'abolitionists were 'Ship them back to Africa' types, not people who gave a squat about blacks. Your rubbish is just white washing, same with most 'historians'.

Forced Into Glory

archive.nytimes.com

Since that time, the mythology of "the great emancipator" has become a part of the mental landscape of America. Generations of schoolchildren have memorized its cadences. Poets, politicians, and long-suffering Blacks have wept over its imagery and drama.

....

A growing body of evidence suggests that the Emancipation Proclamation was a ploy designed not to emancipate the slaves but to keep as many slaves as possible in slavery until Lincoln could mobilize suppor for his conservative plan to free Blacks gradually and to ship them out of the country. What Lincoln was trying to do, then, from our standpoint, was to outmaneuver the real emancipators and to contain the emancipation tide, which had reached such a dangerous intensity that it threatened his ability to govern and to run the war machinery.

This is no mere theory; there is indisputable evidence on this point in documents and in the testimony of reliable witnesses, including Lincoln himself. The most telling testimony comes not from twentieth-century critics but from cronies and confidants who visited the White House and heard the words from Lincoln's mouth. There is, for example, the testimony of Judge David Davis, the three hundred-plus-pound Lincoln crony who visited the White House in 1862, some two months after Lincoln signed the Preliminary Proclamation, and found him working feverishly to subvert his announced plan in favor of his real plan. What was Lincoln's real plan? It was the only emancipation plan he ever had: gradual emancipation, the slower the better, with compensation to slaveowners and the deportation of the emancipated. His "whole soul," Davis said, "is absorbed in his plan [my italics] of remunerative emancipation, and he thinks that if Congress don't fail him, that the problem is solved...."

 

[Doug1943]

lol his second inaugural speech? lol lol The one he made 4 years after he started the war???? you're just stupid, is all. He didn't have squat to say about slavery until 1863, and then it was only to try and cause a revolt in the south. Then there are all those other things he said. when he was starting the war, you know, the one in 1861.

WE can also note that Lincoln himself ordered slaves to remain on their plantations, without permission to leave without written permission form their owners, and those that tried to run were rounded up and put in 'contraband camps' and left to die from disease and starvation, same as prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps. OVer 90% of the 'freed' slaves remained in the South after the war. Your ilk never asks why that was, that's because you don't really give a shit, you just like to posture on the innernetz.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do, it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.- Abraham Lincoln

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles ****ens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.


He ran a White Nationalist ticket; they wanted no blacks in the new territories, period, slave or free,, same after the war was over. Illinois, his home state, toughened the Black Codes even more in the 1850s, along with other northern states. Most 'abolitionists were 'Ship them back to Africa' types, not people who gave a squat about blacks. Your rubbish is just white washing, same with most 'historians'.

Forced Into Glory

archive.nytimes.com

Since that time, the mythology of "the great emancipator" has become a part of the mental landscape of America. Generations of schoolchildren have memorized its cadences. Poets, politicians, and long-suffering Blacks have wept over its imagery and drama.

....

A growing body of evidence suggests that the Emancipation Proclamation was a ploy designed not to emancipate the slaves but to keep as many slaves as possible in slavery until Lincoln could mobilize suppor for his conservative plan to free Blacks gradually and to ship them out of the country. What Lincoln was trying to do, then, from our standpoint, was to outmaneuver the real emancipators and to contain the emancipation tide, which had reached such a dangerous intensity that it threatened his ability to govern and to run the war machinery.

This is no mere theory; there is indisputable evidence on this point in documents and in the testimony of reliable witnesses, including Lincoln himself. The most telling testimony comes not from twentieth-century critics but from cronies and confidants who visited the White House and heard the words from Lincoln's mouth. There is, for example, the testimony of Judge David Davis, the three hundred-plus-pound Lincoln crony who visited the White House in 1862, some two months after Lincoln signed the Preliminary Proclamation, and found him working feverishly to subvert his announced plan in favor of his real plan. What was Lincoln's real plan? It was the only emancipation plan he ever had: gradual emancipation, the slower the better, with compensation to slaveowners and the deportation of the emancipated. His "whole soul," Davis said, "is absorbed in his plan [my italics] of remunerative emancipation, and he thinks that if Congress don't fail him, that the problem is solved...."

Of course, you're just echoing the hard Left narrative about the terrible racist Lincoln. Of course Lincoln was no revolutionary! He didn't want to tear Southern society up by its roots.

Gradual emancipation of the slaves, compensation for the slave-owners ... and relocation of the freed slaves to some other place where they could follow their own destiny... that would have been the ideal solution.

He was no modern soft-headed liberal, either. The reality of the terrible disparity in education/culture between the mass of the whites and the mass of the Blacks was obvious to anyone then.

Lincoln worked with the situation he found himself in, and did a very good job of it. (And how much better things woujld have been, for the South and for everyone, if that idiot Booth had not murdered him. The stupidity of the slave-owners and their deluded puppets like Booth is breath-taking, in hindsight. They -- not the people under them, who fought for their homeland -- deserved everything they got.)

So, let me ask you: if you had been President in 1860, what would you have done?

 

[Doug1943]

Either way, it happened, 140,000 US military personnel died. You can look at whether it's about slavery, about states's rights, about this that or the other. But a person who waves those flags is someone who is supporting fighting against the federal government, it's not patriotic, it's not anything positive in the modern world.

I couldn't care less whether they leave the union or not, but do it properly.

Actually, the number of casualties on both sides was closer to half a million, more than in any other war the US has fought, and in fact more than in all the other wars we have fought added together. It was an enormous national tragedy. But it was unavoidable. If the Southern slaveowners had been a small minority of the ruling elite -- like the British slaveowners were -- they wouldn't have chanced it, and we would have had peaceful emancipation.

Anyone interested in this subject should read one of the best war novels ever written, The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara. It's about the Battle of Gettysburg, seen through the eyes of particular men on both sides, General Longstreet on the Confederate side, and Col. Joshua Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine, on the Union side. (Hollywood made a movie out of the book, called Gettysburg, which isn't too awful, but doesn't have the depth of the book.)

One of the reasons Civil War casualties were so high was that the war was fought using the tactics that had guided battles for the previous two centuries, when they were fought with muskets and smoothbore cannon. Muskets have an effective range of about a hundred yards. But by the time of the Civil War, they were using rifles -- if you look at a Civil War rifle, you'll see its sights can be set to 500 yards. And artillery had vastly improved by then as well. But the tactics had not changed. Massed bayonet charges against entrenched soldiers firing weapons which can kill at 500 yards will necessarily result in terrible casualties.

 

[badbob85037]

It's important for patriots to realize that the Left is not monolithic. There are free thinkers there, classical liberals (not in the free market sense, but in the 1960s sense, ie pro-free speech), Leftists who have not been pulled into the neo-con corporate globalist orbit. All human life is there.
One such person is Naomi Wolf, who was a leading feminist theorist, an advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore ... certainly an enemy of the Right. But ... she is a deeply honest person, with a strong sense of personal morality, and the courage to defy the popular opinion of her friends. Her Wiki bio is here -- her enemies have dredged up every bit of negative trivia they can find, but who she is comes through very clear: [ Naomi Wolf - Wikipedia ]

She bought into the Jan 6 narrative at first. But then
... read her story here. I've excerpted the first few paragraphs: The comments are also interesting.
[ Dear Conservatives, I Apologize ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Conservatives, I Apologize
My "Team" was Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda
Dr Naomi Wolf
Mar 9
There is no way to avoid this moment. The formal letter of apology. From me. To Conservatives and to those who “put America first” everywhere.

It’s tempting to sweep this confrontation with my own gullibility under the rug — to “move on” without ever acknowledging that I was duped, and that as a result I made mistakes in judgement, and that these mistakes, multiplied by the tens of thousands and millions on the part of people just like me, hurt millions of other people like you all, in existential ways.

But that erasure of personal and public history would be wrong.

I owe you a full-throated apology.

I believed a farrago of lies. And, as a result of these lies, and my credulity — and the credulity of people similarly situated to me - many conservatives’ reputations are being tarnished, on false bases.

The proximate cause of this letter of apology is the airing, two nights ago, of excepts from tens of thousands of hours of security camera footage from the United States Capitol taken on Jan 6, 2021. ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her whole essay is well worth reading: she goes into the history of protest a the Capitol ... it's very interesting!

[ Dear Conservatives, I Apologize ]

Why don't you buy a house from them?

 

[scruffy]

IMO there are not honest people on the Left

Not on this forum, anyway.

There are only the most morons of morons on the Left.

Pretty much. You'd have to be a straight up idiot to be a leftard these days.

 

[pknopp]

Nice SPIN. Every one surrendered is claiming asylum. Millions. 200K per month. They need to be housed Fed etc. But you knew that. You're a commee spinner.....acting cool. Like a technicality provides the living for free.

If you don't care about the facts, you don't care about the facts. You don't care about the facts.

 

[DudleySmith]

Of course, you're just echoing the hard Left narrative about the terrible racist Lincoln. Of course Lincoln was no revolutionary! He didn't want to tear Southern society up by its roots.

Gradual emancipation of the slaves, compensation for the slave-owners ... and relocation of the freed slaves to some other place where they could follow their own destiny... that would have been the ideal solution.

He was no modern soft-headed liberal, either. The reality of the terrible disparity in education/culture between the mass of the whites and the mass of the Blacks was obvious to anyone then.

Lincoln worked with the situation he found himself in, and did a very good job of it. (And how much better things woujld have been, for the South and for everyone, if that idiot Booth had not murdered him. The stupidity of the slave-owners and their deluded puppets like Booth is breath-taking, in hindsight. They -- not the people under them, who fought for their homeland -- deserved everything they got.)

So, let me ask you: if you had been President in 1860, what would you have done?

I would have avoided starting a civil war just to finance a lot of massive corporate welfare programs for one. As for the your first sentence, you're only doubling down on ignorant stupidity, as usual.

 

[Doug1943]

Why don't you buy a house from them?

Because why a mouse is when it spins.

 

[westwall]

Lol. In my experience, very few people who make the claim actually are.

You don't get to declare you are cool, or heroic, or special in any way.

If other people, lots of them, declare it, then yeah, okay.

But self declaring is at best delusional.

 

[PeterPilot]

Tulsi Gabbard? Not too smart. Her webpage was littered with Global Warming BS. I wrote the loon off about three years ago. She is a fruitcake.

It seems then that you are offended by individuals who advocate for constitutional governance and the rule of law, by decency?

 

[PeterPilot]

Hmmm.... with that sort of thinking, you must be contemplating a pretty extensive blood-purge of the whole country. And why do you say that about Dick Cheney? It was the Left who hated him, not the Right.

I am independent thinking, leaning towards Libertarian.

The Left-Right Paradigm has countless shortcomings. Bush, Cheney, Clinton, McConnel, Cheney, Schumer are all war mongers and traitors. I can't name them all.

 

[pknopp]

I am independent thinking, leaning towards Libertarian.

The Left-Right Paradigm has countless shortcomings. Bush, Cheney, Clinton, McConnel, Cheney, Schumer are all war mongers and traitors. I can't name them all.

No one can not name them all but you left out a big one. Obama.

 

[Doug1943]

I am independent thinking, leaning towards Libertarian.

The Left-Right Paradigm has countless shortcomings. Bush, Cheney, Clinton, McConnel, Cheney, Schumer are all war mongers and traitors. I can't name them all.

Except for your choice of vocabulary -- "traitors" -- I agree with you. We're stuck with a one-dimensional axis, when in fact we need half a dozen or more dimensions to properly characterize social/political reality. Not the mention the fact that it's always changing, in response to underlying changes in the economy, plus reactions to random events.

I love Libertarians, who are the Right with a human face. But I can't agree with their desire to auction off the National Parks. And their more consistent adherents believe we could get along without taxation, funding the state via voluntary contributions. (There used to be a slogan popular with Bay Area Lefties, "Wouldn't it be great if our schools had all the money they needed, and the Navy had to have a bake sale to buy a new carrier?" Consistent Libertarians would make both schools and the military support themselves through bake sales. Bless their hearts.)