Faolan, instead of asking Mr. Sale to "come to his senses," why don't you provide a counter-argument and explain why he is wrong about the causes of the Civil War. Are the facts he presents untrue?
Basically the point is that even though the south seceded (legally) because of slavery, that does not mean that slavery was the reason the Civil War was fought. Neither side was wholly correct in this conflict.
The South Seceded because of slavery and overreacted to the election of Lincoln, who was a MODERATE on the issue and stated himself several times that his primary goal was to preserve the union and that he would do this without freeing a single slave, by freeing all of them, or by freeing some and not others.
The reasons Lincoln fought to keep the south in the union was not to stop slavery, as he stated several times. Complete abolition of slavery was not considered a war aim until later in the conflict. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had seceded. In sort, it didn't free a single slave b/c the south had not yet lost the war. Either Will Moredock is unaware of these facts or simply chooses to ignore them. I hope it's the former, as the latter would expose him as a liar and a fraud.
"This is the politician with White House ambitions who wants to defund the state's public education system to subsidize the private educations of middle and upper middle class children."
See Will, the main problem I have with this statement is that it's completely untrue. Sanford is rejecting a plan that would fund permanent programs with temporary money and create more problems in the future, but since he's a Republican, he must be the anti-Christ for rejecting all that "free money".
If you City Paper guys (including your excellent, but dementedly anti-Sanford political cartoonist) spent less time bashing Sanford and more time truly considering the wisdom of spending like tomorrow will never come, I think logical points like this would no longer elude you, but you're too wrapped up in an "us vs. them" mentality that makes pretty much any Republican automatically the enemy, and pretty much any Democrat the good guy.
This is why you consider Mark Sanford to be just like George W. Bush, despite the fact that G.W. is the antithesis of Sanford when it comes to the most important issues facing the country.
--Daniel Bein (the pro-choice, pro gay marriage, Nader voting, Sanford supporting fiscal conservative)
Sanford disagrees with most of the policies that supposedly made G.W. Bush unpopular. He is against pre-imptive war, pro-fiscal sanity etc. He is clearly nothing like Bush, but he has an R before his name and he's white, so he must be the boogie man.
Since Obama took office I've come to realize that he's going to get a free pass on any policies that he supports which were similar to Bush's, such as endless war and reckless spending, but because he's not Bush and he's got a D in front of his name, it won't matter.
Obama is far closer to Bush than Sanford is on the one issue that supposedly made Bush more unpopular than almost any president in recent memory: war. Yet Sanford is the next Bush, not Obama? Sorry, I call BS on that one. If anyone is the "next Bush", it's the big spending, war continuing rich man that took his place. Too bad that doesn't matter.
The scariest thing is that so many of the people I knew who hated Bush didn't really hate him because of what he did, but because of who he was. He was an arrogant SOB, I'll give you that. But the reason to dislike Bush is because he was a war monger and a thug who supported unlimited govt. power. If Barack does all of the same things, or continues them, he'll get a free pass because he's Democrat, and Mark Sanford will be considered the bad guy because he sticks to the principles that Bush spat upon.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper