And in spite of Secretary Toombs’ statement, I maintain that from a southern point of view they were repelling invading foreign troops. I don’t see how you can reasonable state otherwise without making the frankly stupid claim that the south seceded yet did not believe that they were a separate, sovereign nation.
Hilarity ensues.
You know, for someone who professes only to be playing the devil’s advocate here, you seem to have gone off the deep end. But we’ll presume for the sake of argument that you just get very worked up when defending historical horseshit.
1960? Is this something that came up during the Nixon/Kennedy debates? :dubious:
Still waiting for that citation from the Constitution where it says that seceding states are entitled to federal property.
The original law was merely that as a thread drags on, the chances of a Hitler or Nazi comparisan appearing climbs to one. That doesn’t mean that all Hitler comparisons are inapproriate or should kill the discussion.
The long-standing Usenet tradition, carried on in other venues, is that the person eventually making the Nazi comparison has lost the argument.
As to the appropriateness all these Hitler/Nazi invocations, Godwin said it quite well:
*…invariably, the comparisons trivialized the horror of the Holocaust and the social pathology of the Nazis. It was a trivialization I found both illogical (Michael Dukakis as a Nazi? Please!) and offensive (the millions of concentration-camp victims did not die to give some net.blowhard a handy trope)."
*
Add to that the sheer futility of Godwinization. References to Bush et al as Nazis a) disgust and energize portions of the opposition to be equally nauseating, b) earn contempt from those who might be sympathetic to the goals of the Godwinizers but are repelled by the tactics and the sheer ignorance of history they display, and c) cause the mass of undecided citizens to tune out, as they have heard this bombast in so many contexts that it no longer has meaning.
All this leaves is the apparent juvenile thrill it gives some people to shout “Nazi!”.
Knock yourself out, folks. It matters not whether you win or lose, but what smug satisfaction you can attain along the way.
This is a whoosh, right?
You’re not really placing some dude’s claims based on internet back-and-forth babbling on the same level as a judicial or scientific law?
Worked up? Who is worked up? I’m simply arguing a position. If you actually get worked up about discussing these things on the internet, I suggest that you find a new outlet, the big, bad internet is obviously not for you.
So your entire argument boils down to this: #1 quibbling over a typo(when I had already used the correct 1860 earlier in the post, and since we’re discussing the Civil War it was obvious what I meant), and #2 a rather astounding demand that I produce evidence that a state that is seceding from the Union should do so using a constitutional justification from the Union that it was leaving as a basis for the succession. I don’t know weather you’re simply stupid or only trying to stir up shit for no reason except that you can. What is your point here? South Carolina seceded and thus believed it was severing all ties with the nation it had previously been a part of. Why on earth should they have to justify that according to the laws of a nation they no longer believed they were a part of? As Foghorn Leghorn might say, “I say, I say son, you’re not making any sense here”.
Possibly, but that’s not “Godwin’s Law,” which states that: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
I understand that you’re not specifically invoking Godwin’s Law, and actually went with the colloquial use set down on the Wiki article: “There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.”
However, as Godwin’s Law has been mentioned several times in this thread, I thought it appropriate to point out that the Usenet tradition, while referencing Godwin’s law, is not the law itself.
</gigantic hijack>
In point of fact, the fact that the Confederate states had seized so much federal property was a cornerstone of Lincoln’s justification for war with the South. Part of the reason secession is illegal (and I think that the argument was good then, too) is that the seceding states take with them property that belongs not to them but to all the people of the United States.
It might also be argued that the South’s viewing themselves as a sovereign nation is largely irrelevant, from a diplomatic and legal point of view, with no (or at least very few) foreign governments having recognized them as such.
Calm down, Dave. 
You made the bizarre claim that “When South Carolina seceded from the union, all Federal property in the state reverted to state control”, implying an existing legal justification for attacking/seizing said property. If you’re now conceding that there’s no such justification and that you were talking out your ass, well and good. It just does nothing for your case that the Union acted under “false pretenses” in invading the South.
Finn: Careful now - you risk violating Murphy’s Law and being hauled away in irons. 
You made the bizarre claim that “When South Carolina seceded from the union, all Federal property in the state reverted to state control”, implying an existing legal justification for attacking/seizing said property. If you’re now conceding that there’s no such justification and that you were talking out your ass, well and good. It just does nothing for your case that the Union acted under “false pretenses” in invading the South.
Finn: Careful now - you risk violating Murphy’s Law and being hauled away in irons.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Wow, that was weird, I didn’t get a chance to type a damn thing and the message board decided my reply should be nothing and submitted it. It’s like the software has decided all replys shall be as lacking in content as Elv1s’ stuff. Weird. As I was saying…
FUCK YOU YOU MOTHERFUCKING SISTER HUMPING SHIT STAIN ON A TAMPON OF AN IGNORANT LOSER YOU.
Better?
You know, I am puzzled why you keep ignoring my point. I am going to state it slowly and deliberately, again, and I’d like your response if you want to continue this discussion. South Carolina had seceded from the Union. As far as they were concerned, the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America had as much to do with them as the decrees of the king of Siam. The United States of America had to fight a war to make it abundantly clear that South Carolina did NOT have the right to secede and could NOT ignore the laws of the United States. What is so damn hard about this to understand? Before that war took place, arguing that a seceded SC was subject to the laws of the US makes about as much sense as claiming that a British citizen arrested under the Official Secrets Act is being deprived of his First Amendment rights according to the US Constitution. Jesus Jack, you’ve never seemed stupid before, what’s going on here?
Whether or not diehards in South Carolina actually believed that secession automatically gave them legal grounds to ignore rights of the Union and conventions of civilized behavior toward it, they had no practical expectation that they’d get away with it. To reiterate what you keep trying to evade - it is nonsense to claim that the Union invaded the South under “false pretenses”, as attacks on it and seizures of its property were ample justification and to be expected by any rational secessionist. The gung-ho militarists among the rebels actually welcomed armed conflict - there’s no other explanation for their behavior.
As for “ignoring (your) point” - it’s you who are seizing on unrelated issues and ducking my request for a cite regarding “reversion” of federal property to a seceding state.
Projecting your behavior onto others is unproductive and childish. Grow up.
George,
Hmmmmm, such a response. I guess the obvious was just too obvious for you as well.
I was not calling the OP an idiot because he was wrong about the facts. I did not need any cites, nor did I call for one.
The OP is an idiot because he/she thinks there would be a different outcome than what has happened, AND, as you pointed out but did not follow through on, the subset of Democrats that started this ARE doing the same thing but he/she failed to include them in his pitting, hypocrisy on that level is idiocy.
Thanks for trying George. Why don’t you throw out some more of those cool insults to try and gloss over your face plant. You do have a way with words, by George.
Of course he’s not Hitler. The closest comparison is another war criminal. Bush is Nixon without the brain and passport.
Further on the same theme.
Socialism isn’t communism.
A National Health Service isn’t communism.
Progressive income taxes aren’t communism.
etc etc.
Jack, you’re just being an asshole. iIstated it succinctly in an earlier post, I’ll quote it for you now:
Answer that question please, would you? How can the Confederate States set up a sovereign government yet still be subject to the laws of a different nation? Stop evading the question and just fucking answer it.
Not the point I raised. Actual point and false claim made to refute it still not addressed. Attempt to change subject. Use of “I know you are, what am I?” tactic.
Odds of further conversation being productive - nil.
:wally
Oh well, one last try:
“Sovereign nation” A attacks sovereign nation B.
Nation B responds in force.
“Sovereign nation” A has no grounds to complain that it was attacked under “false pretenses”.
No whining and equivocation can change that.
And from The Fringe…
Bush ain’t hitler on account of he ain’t got a bullet hole in his noggin (we’ll dispense with that other “Hitler Lives!” conspiracy theory this time around). But I would like to point out that they share some common values and techniques.
I think it can be safely said that Bush doesn’t value civil liberties as much as say, Ben Franklin or Black Americans, or gays, or immigrants. And I think that Bush has made it no secret that, while he may not give two shits about me–an all-American, apple pie munchin’ Army veteran–he would actively alienate and legislate against a well-defined segment of the population (No Gay Marriages AMMENDMENT).
Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse to suspend civil liberties in Germany. Bush took a massive bite out of our own rights and used a terrorist attack as his excuse.
Hitler played the Nationalism card to get support from the people and tolerance from the world; Bush has alienated our allies with his whole attitude of “The world must stand aside while we avenge ourseves” attitude. Just as the world stood aside as Hitler reclaimed the Rhineland, annexed the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia using fictitious history as an excuse, and absorbed Austria. It was only after he took Poland under the mask of uniting East Prussia with Germany that The World had had enough. Both guys held up the “We’re just setting things right!” flag to stave off criticism while they pursued their international agenda of dominance.
And remember, in Germany, when all of this was going on, most folks either didn’t realize what Hitler’s activies were leading to, or didn’t experience enough personal loss to offset the pride of shedding the rape of Versailles. Hitler wasn’t advertising the Jewish fires and Bush doesn’t advertise what’s going on in Guantanamo or the various CIA Information shops throught Central Yurp.
Yeah, Bush is no Hitler. No Stalin. No Pol Pot. Not to ME and my felow red-bloded, White-skinned 'Merkins. But he sure does have a dividing interest in neutralizing the threat of The Brown-Skinned Man in proportion similar to Hitler’s Krystalnacht backlash against the Jews.
Same kind of evil. Different man, different crimes, different agenda, but the same kind of self-driven, persecuting evil.
Dang, Inigo. That was some good stuff. Can I please have it as my .sig?