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.
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.
In case you haven't noticed, Jack is just as critical of George W. Bush as he is of Obama, if not more so. In fact, if you read the piece that you just commented on, you may have noticed that the entire point of it is to point out that war spending under a white guy is just as bad as bailouts under a black guy.
Funny that someone accusing people of racism is the one who points out that all the people at the tea party where white.
And I'll have you know that I support the objectives of those at the tea parties, but have nothing against black people or any other non-white folks.
But I guess the fact that I agree with a bunch of white people makes me a racist and therefore not a credible source. I wonder who here is truly guilty of stereotyping others?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper