You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #79: I rank such denial as only slightly less nauseating than Holocaust denial. -nt [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
79. I rank such denial as only slightly less nauseating than Holocaust denial. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -"the central cause of the (Civil) war was our national disagreement about race and slavery" Still a Democrat  Dec-27-10 07:41 AM   #0 
  - k&r nt  mix   Dec-27-10 07:48 AM   #1 
  - That was the only "States Rights" issue that they cared about.  hobbit709   Dec-27-10 08:08 AM   #2 
  - Your hypothesis is inaccurate.  Creative   Dec-27-10 08:16 AM   #3 
  - Without slavery...  Cassandra   Dec-27-10 08:20 AM   #4 
  - That is true; however, slavery was not the issue.  Creative   Dec-27-10 08:33 AM   #10 
     - His wife's family owned slaves. Lincoln did not.  hlthe2b   Dec-27-10 08:41 AM   #12 
     - Lincoln didn't own slaves.  JVS   Dec-27-10 08:44 AM   #17 
     - read some history and educate yourself.  cali   Dec-27-10 09:08 AM   #27 
        - For your educational benefit: From the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858.  Creative   Dec-27-10 09:37 AM   #33 
           - He was addressing a crowd as a politician.  Marr   Dec-27-10 07:09 PM   #78 
           - You are correct, "he was addressing a crowd as a politician."  Creative   Dec-28-10 08:59 AM   #107 
           - And yet nowhere in that speech does Lincoln ctate owning slaves, or that he is pro-slavery  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 07:52 AM   #98 
  - Simple-Minded Nonesense, Sir  The Magistrate   Dec-27-10 08:23 AM   #5 
  - Thank you for making my point.  Creative   Dec-27-10 08:28 AM   #8 
     - codswallop  cali   Dec-27-10 08:42 AM   #14 
     - .  Creative   Dec-27-10 08:52 AM   #23 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-27-10 09:09 AM   #28 
     - yeah, that's why the underground railroad was such a huge undertaking  cali   Dec-27-10 08:42 AM   #15 
     - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Dec-27-10 08:47 AM   #20 
  - slave economy nt  Warren Stupidity   Dec-27-10 08:27 AM   #6 
  - New England had a "slave trade" economy  unc70   Dec-27-10 04:59 PM   #74 
     - No. New England had some wealthy families involved in the trade.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-27-10 05:43 PM   #76 
  - Economics and slavery were THE SAME ISSUE  NWHarkness   Dec-27-10 08:41 AM   #13 
  - well argued  mix   Dec-27-10 08:44 AM   #18 
  - Agreed. The level of confederate sympathizer talking points cropping up here is egregious.  JVS   Dec-27-10 08:46 AM   #19 
  - Indeed  hootinholler   Dec-27-10 11:40 AM   #46 
  - Actually, it's probably closer to the truth (if such exists) to say that  coalition_unwilling   Dec-28-10 03:19 PM   #169 
     - The point is Lee or no one else ruined the south...  hootinholler   Dec-28-10 05:45 PM   #195 
     - Admirably expressed. Points well taken. I do think you would  coalition_unwilling   Dec-28-10 09:53 PM   #206 
     - Try Not To Let It Ruin Your Day. (n/t)  Paladin   Dec-29-10 06:41 AM   #217 
  - And Some Would Argue That DU ...  Kweli4Real   Dec-28-10 10:10 PM   #207 
     - Ah. Creative is gone.  JVS   Dec-28-10 10:21 PM   #209 
  - The civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery.  Creative   Dec-27-10 09:19 AM   #29 
  - What a banal assertion.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-27-10 09:36 AM   #32 
  - It is you that is living in an "alternate universe, for you are unable to acknowledge the  Creative   Dec-27-10 09:50 AM   #34 
     - I attacked your assertion, not you.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-27-10 10:07 AM   #37 
        - I think the guy who started this war probably knows more than you or I about why it was fought.  Creative   Dec-27-10 10:32 AM   #38 
           - I give up.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-27-10 10:36 AM   #40 
           - It's not a matter of winning or losing, or being an apologist for the South.  Creative   Dec-27-10 11:05 AM   #41 
              - How about acknowledging post 7 where Alexander Stephens said it was about slavery  JVS   Dec-27-10 11:40 AM   #47 
                 - How about acknowledging where Lincoln said it was not.  Creative   Dec-27-10 12:09 PM   #52 
                    - Since Stephens was one of the guys who started the war, he knows better than Lincoln why it happened  JVS   Dec-27-10 12:25 PM   #54 
                       - .  Creative   Dec-27-10 02:26 PM   #60 
                       - Actually, I believe it was the North which invaded the South.  Creative   Dec-27-10 02:28 PM   #63 
                          - It was Southern troops who attacked federal soldiers at Sumter.  JVS   Dec-27-10 03:16 PM   #69 
           - Lincoln started the Civil War?  mix   Dec-27-10 11:57 AM   #50 
           - A blockade is an act of war.  Creative   Dec-27-10 02:27 PM   #61 
              - As is the bombardment of a federal fort. nt  NoGOPZone   Dec-27-10 03:07 PM   #66 
              - And the bombardment happened before the blockade.  JVS   Dec-27-10 03:16 PM   #70 
              - Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12th, 1861.  mix   Dec-27-10 07:01 PM   #77 
           - That man was also capable of . . .  DeltaLitProf   Dec-29-10 05:31 AM   #216 
  - Name a reason  NWHarkness   Dec-27-10 09:57 AM   #36 
  - Here is one of the many...taxes.  Creative   Dec-27-10 10:34 AM   #39 
     - Not Applicable  NWHarkness   Dec-27-10 11:06 AM   #42 
     - It most certainly is applicable, as was the suspension of habeas corpus.  Creative   Dec-27-10 11:35 AM   #44 
        - Again, not applicable  NWHarkness   Dec-27-10 11:55 AM   #49 
        - But those states were not at war until that happened; thus, that was a REASON for the war.  Creative   Dec-27-10 12:08 PM   #51 
           - That makes no sense at all  NWHarkness   Dec-27-10 12:22 PM   #53 
        - The alleged Taney Arrest Warrant is not an accepted historical fact.  NoGOPZone   Dec-27-10 03:11 PM   #67 
           - The warrant was issued and it was documented by the Federal Marshal  Creative   Dec-28-10 07:39 AM   #96 
              - Several of Lincoln's biographers regard the story as false.  NoGOPZone   Dec-28-10 08:05 AM   #101 
                 - However, Lincoln's first biographer, the federal marshal who issued the warrant  Creative   Dec-28-10 08:55 AM   #105 
                    - You've cleverly avoided the documentation issue  NoGOPZone   Dec-28-10 10:52 AM   #118 
                       - Lamon was one of Lincoln's closest friends and confidants. In my view, that validates his statement.  Creative   Dec-28-10 11:37 AM   #125 
                          - Yes, in your view. So now I'm back to my original statement  NoGOPZone   Dec-28-10 11:41 AM   #126 
                             - Yes, "several historians" who never met Lincoln.  Creative   Dec-28-10 11:52 AM   #127 
                                - No, documentation would establish his statement as historical fact  NoGOPZone   Dec-28-10 11:55 AM   #128 
                                   - He didn't simply meet Lincoln, they were extremely close. And the fact remains  Creative   Dec-28-10 05:22 PM   #189 
                                      - His closeness to Lincoln does not establish his veracity  NoGOPZone   Dec-28-10 05:38 PM   #193 
     - The reason for the naval blockade was that it was considered a less violent means of subduing...  JVS   Dec-27-10 12:40 PM   #55 
        - Surly, you must be aware of the fact that a naval blockade constitutes an act of war.  Creative   Dec-27-10 02:34 PM   #64 
           - See responses to 64. I can't believe how far you go to try to justify those treasonous dogs.  JVS   Dec-27-10 07:17 PM   #80 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-28-10 06:55 AM   #92 
              - That's like saying, if I say Nazis are "genocidal bastards"...  Commie Pinko Dirtbag   Dec-28-10 08:01 PM   #201 
           - The "War of Northern Aggression" then?  mix   Dec-27-10 09:51 PM   #86 
           - Up until that time, most people believed that there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution  Creative   Dec-28-10 07:09 AM   #93 
              - Misleading and mistaken revisionism.  mix   Dec-28-10 10:36 AM   #115 
                 - It is not revisionist to state what many believed at the time. Moreover, this issue was never  Creative   Dec-28-10 05:31 PM   #192 
           - No, And don't call me "surly"!  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 02:43 PM   #157 
           - Bombing a fort is also an act of war  martymar64   Dec-28-10 07:59 PM   #200 
  - That's like saying the Super Bowl would happen with or without the institution of football  fishwax   Dec-27-10 11:06 PM   #88 
     - 74% of Southerns did not own slaves; thus, it is clear that there was more going on in  Creative   Dec-28-10 07:47 AM   #97 
        - 80% of the people in this country holds 20% of the wealth  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 08:04 AM   #100 
        - So? What percent of Americans owned stock in 1929?  fishwax   Dec-28-10 11:05 AM   #119 
        - By the same token, did not poor northerners benefit from slave ownership in the North?  Creative   Dec-28-10 11:31 AM   #123 
           - So you think it wasn't about slavery for the south because the north got benefits too?  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 12:17 PM   #134 
           - they weren't as reliant on it, clearly  fishwax   Dec-28-10 12:18 PM   #136 
              - I understand, slavery is okay with you as long as some people aren't "as reliant on it" as others.  Creative   Dec-28-10 12:44 PM   #139 
                 - lol -- that's simply an absurd response, since I never said anything remotely like that  fishwax   Dec-28-10 02:26 PM   #153 
        - Yet slaveowners and poor whites enjoyed the privilege of their whiteness in the South.  mix   Dec-28-10 11:08 AM   #120 
  - Sorta.  lumberjack_jeff   Dec-27-10 11:33 AM   #43 
  - Compensated Emancipation was used to free the slaves in the District of Columbia.  Creative   Dec-28-10 09:15 AM   #108 
  - Exactly.  H2O Man   Dec-28-10 01:39 PM   #145 
  - the timing of secession is suspicious.  unblock   Dec-27-10 08:54 AM   #24 
  - If slavery was THAT big an issue, why did the political party which based their campaign  Creative   Dec-27-10 09:23 AM   #30 
     - oh please. 1852?  unblock   Dec-27-10 09:35 AM   #31 
     - Historically, 3rd parties are harbingers for major party issues.  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 02:47 PM   #158 
  - In the South of the time, slavery WAS economics  demwing   Dec-27-10 01:55 PM   #57 
  - I am not trying to sanitize the institution of slavery, I am simply making the point  Creative   Dec-28-10 07:21 AM   #94 
     - I do understand you are not defending slavery, please try to understand  demwing   Dec-28-10 07:58 AM   #99 
     - The point I am trying to make is that although slavery was an outdated leftover institution from  Creative   Dec-28-10 08:53 AM   #104 
        - This is a lot like saying that the Titanic sank because it filled with water  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 10:14 AM   #114 
        - are you suggestion that seccession should have been allowed?  salin   Dec-28-10 01:03 PM   #142 
        - You seem to be an advocate of calling it The Northern War of Aggression.  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 02:55 PM   #160 
        - Yes, I choose to acknowledge things like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Emancipation Proclamation,  Creative   Dec-28-10 03:36 PM   #171 
           - Something tells me you're also reading the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 10:45 PM   #212 
        - So I give you a WIDE open door to condemn slavery  demwing   Dec-29-10 07:03 AM   #218 
     - Which is an attempt to sanitize the institution of slavery  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 08:05 AM   #102 
  - It was economics. The outmoded slave labor versus the new capitalist system based on wage labor  Better Believe It   Dec-27-10 02:08 PM   #58 
  - I agree with much of what you say, for Capitalism cannot work with slave labor.  Creative   Dec-27-10 02:40 PM   #65 
     - There is nothing that precludes the use of slave labor in a capitalist system.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-28-10 08:56 AM   #106 
        - I prefer to use the dictionary to define words. You see, unlike opioniions,  Creative   Dec-28-10 09:27 AM   #110 
           - Do you have a reason for stating that?  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 10:51 AM   #117 
           - great - I see your are taking my suggestion.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-28-10 02:11 PM   #149 
              - I am not arguing that states cannot own slaves.  Creative   Dec-28-10 02:56 PM   #161 
                 - "capitalism is the only economic system that recognizes property rights"  Warren Stupidity   Dec-29-10 03:20 PM   #221 
  - I agree. nm  rhett o rick   Dec-27-10 03:15 PM   #68 
  - By what legal mechanism could Lincoln have banned slavery  MannyGoldstein   Dec-28-10 05:24 AM   #91 
  - That's simple, the North was already ignoring the Constitution with regard to fugitive slave laws.  Creative   Dec-28-10 07:26 AM   #95 
     - I don't think that's the case  MannyGoldstein   Dec-28-10 08:53 AM   #103 
     - Okay, let my try to make my point more clearly.  Creative   Dec-28-10 09:46 AM   #111 
        - In 1860, Lincoln was not yet president  Art_from_Ark   Dec-29-10 03:03 AM   #214 
     - So slavery was at the heart of secession after all? nt  mix   Dec-28-10 11:18 AM   #122 
        - Nice try, but the point made was Lincoln choosing not to free ALL slaves being held in the US.  Creative   Dec-28-10 12:09 PM   #131 
           - again, slavery nt  mix   Dec-28-10 12:10 PM   #132 
              - Again, if slavery was the reason, why not free them all?  Creative   Dec-28-10 12:17 PM   #135 
                 - That was eventually done.  mix   Dec-28-10 12:39 PM   #138 
  - Dude - economy and slavery were the SAME ISSUE ...  Cosmocat   Dec-28-10 09:55 AM   #112 
  - The hypothesis is correct, as anyone who has studied History knows.  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 01:38 PM   #144 
  - Tell me then, how could the north fight for the emancipation of slaves in the South  Creative   Dec-28-10 02:14 PM   #150 
     - Have you considered taking reputable courses from a good university?  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 02:30 PM   #155 
        - Clearly, you are the victim of a substandard educational process.  Creative   Dec-28-10 02:38 PM   #156 
           - Clearly you are a victim of a Confederate educational process.  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 03:08 PM   #165 
              - Well, at least my victim status did not lead me to the same conclusions that you revealed  Creative   Dec-28-10 03:16 PM   #168 
  - BS, hands down it was about slavery and preserving the union  Taverner   Dec-28-10 03:14 PM   #167 
  - Well then, perhaps you can explain to me how it could have been about slavery,  Creative   Dec-28-10 03:28 PM   #170 
     - Although there was slavery in the North, most Americans at the time thought there wasn't  Taverner   Dec-28-10 04:01 PM   #174 
        - Unlike others, you are at least willing to acknowledge the fact that slavery did indeed exist  Creative   Dec-28-10 04:39 PM   #178 
           - Well yeah, and indentured servitude was going on too  Taverner   Dec-28-10 04:45 PM   #181 
              - Oh and for what I'm smoking - I don't consider Howard Zinn a drug  Taverner   Dec-28-10 04:46 PM   #182 
  - Here is a link to the Confederate Constitution  sudopod   Dec-28-10 05:28 PM   #191 
  - Here is a link to the US Constitution. If it was about slavery, you would not find these words:  Creative   Dec-28-10 05:56 PM   #196 
  - Propaganda for the masses. WMD, anyone? It was an economic  tsuki   Dec-28-10 06:06 PM   #198 
  - According to the South Carolina Declaration of Secession, it was exactly about slavery  martymar64   Dec-28-10 07:47 PM   #199 
  - Sorry, but no  DeltaLitProf   Dec-29-10 05:29 AM   #215 
  - The vice-president of the Confederacy said this.  JVS   Dec-27-10 08:27 AM   #7 
  - Pretty much proof positive that the war was about slavery  Taverner   Dec-28-10 04:39 PM   #179 
  - For the North it was about preserving the Union, for the South it was about maintaining slavery.  JVS   Dec-27-10 08:28 AM   #9 
  - er, it was also very, very much about abolition for much of the North.  cali   Dec-27-10 08:47 AM   #21 
  - "for much of the north" better reflects the various perspectives, but I'd say that the official...  JVS   Dec-27-10 08:54 AM   #25 
  - Preserving a union with capitalism as the national economic system!  Better Believe It   Dec-27-10 02:16 PM   #59 
  - If so, then Marx found Capitalism winning over a chattel slave system is nothing lamentable.  JVS   Dec-27-10 03:37 PM   #71 
  - This is a beautiful document you have linked to. Brought tears to  coalition_unwilling   Dec-27-10 03:58 PM   #73 
  - You are committing the 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy that  coalition_unwilling   Dec-27-10 03:49 PM   #72 
  - Why was a civil war over slavery assured?  Art_from_Ark   Dec-27-10 08:42 PM   #82 
     - It wasn't. If the sides had been more evenly matched in terms of factories and  gkhouston   Dec-28-10 11:18 AM   #121 
        - King Cotton.  mix   Dec-28-10 11:36 AM   #124 
  - The South also wanted a "Tropical Empire"  Taverner   Dec-28-10 04:48 PM   #183 
  - And the 2nd Amendment gave the Rebels mistaken encouragement.  sharesunited   Dec-27-10 08:33 AM   #11 
  - So many of the history books written by southerners in the south say that slavery  loudsue   Dec-27-10 08:43 AM   #16 
  - "People are supposed to be bent to their will, and the truth should be bent to their liking. "  eleny   Dec-27-10 09:02 AM   #26 
     - Thanks!  loudsue   Dec-27-10 09:54 AM   #35 
  - During the civil rights movement,  LuvNewcastle   Dec-27-10 08:51 AM   #22 
  - I believe we are dealing with a "primal directive" to dominate, a  ladjf   Dec-27-10 11:39 AM   #45 
  - Bingo! It has always been about power  MadMaddie   Dec-27-10 12:47 PM   #56 
  - Very true - the CSA created a culture that is still alive today  Taverner   Dec-28-10 04:53 PM   #185 
  - Of course it was - they wanted free labor. nt  TBF   Dec-27-10 11:42 AM   #48 
  - And the North used *practically* free labor  Art_from_Ark   Dec-27-10 05:30 PM   #75 
  - Thank God slavery was abolished! Now can we move on to focusing  RegieRocker   Dec-27-10 02:28 PM   #62 
  - I rank such denial as only slightly less nauseating than Holocaust denial. -nt  Commie Pinko Dirtbag   Dec-27-10 07:12 PM   #79 
  - Why "slightly less"? n/t  Kweli4Real   Dec-28-10 10:23 PM   #210 
  - Yes  ismnotwasm   Dec-27-10 07:37 PM   #81 
  - The South was more interested in gaining new states  Art_from_Ark   Dec-27-10 09:21 PM   #84 
     - Oh, I've no doubt.  ismnotwasm   Dec-28-10 01:57 PM   #147 
  - DU needs to come up with another "bingo card" for slavery apologists,  bullwinkle428   Dec-27-10 08:43 PM   #83 
  - Four squares down, 20 to go. Let me try to help.  Commie Pinko Dirtbag   Dec-27-10 09:40 PM   #85 
  - The one that absolutely enrages me is the trope that Lincoln  coalition_unwilling   Dec-27-10 10:53 PM   #87 
  - Come to the brainstorm!  Commie Pinko Dirtbag   Dec-27-10 11:21 PM   #90 
  - I have to disagree ...  Kweli4Real   Dec-28-10 10:30 PM   #211 
     - OK, using your definition of 'racist' (questionable on its surface but be that as it may),  coalition_unwilling   Dec-28-10 11:10 PM   #213 
        - Oh, Come on ...  Kweli4Real   Dec-29-10 12:31 PM   #219 
           - I had forgotten that passage from the 1858 debate and I think I may  coalition_unwilling   Dec-29-10 01:34 PM   #220 
  - How about  JVS   Dec-27-10 11:21 PM   #89 
  - And maybe we can add  Rabrrrrrr   Dec-28-10 09:19 AM   #109 
  - BINGO!  TexasObserver   Dec-28-10 03:03 PM   #164 
     - Can't be BINGO already ...  Kweli4Real   Dec-28-10 10:18 PM   #208 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-28-10 09:58 AM   #113 
     - you should get your facts and dates right first  mix   Dec-28-10 10:38 AM   #116 
     - Most reputable scholars agree that there was more to the Civil War than slavery.  Creative   Dec-28-10 11:57 AM   #129 
        - Agreed.  mix   Dec-28-10 12:06 PM   #130 
        - This is the legal definition of "civil war."  Creative   Dec-28-10 12:15 PM   #133 
           - I do not consider your link an authoritative source.  mix   Dec-28-10 12:30 PM   #137 
           - Well, that is the legal definition and you know what they say about leading a horse to water...  Creative   Dec-28-10 12:46 PM   #140 
              - Article I, Section 8, spells out the power of Congress  mix   Dec-28-10 01:28 PM   #143 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-28-10 02:08 PM   #148 
                    - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-28-10 02:17 PM   #151 
                    - Yours is simply a misreading of the Constitution.  mix   Dec-28-10 02:27 PM   #154 
                       - Well, since the issue has not been decided by the courts, I will have to rely on  Creative   Dec-28-10 03:45 PM   #172 
                          - It did come before the Supreme Court in 1868, Texas v. White.  mix   Dec-28-10 05:27 PM   #190 
                             - I believe the war ended in 1864; prior to this decision.  Creative   Dec-28-10 06:00 PM   #197 
                                - The war ended in April 1865, not 1864.  martymar64   Dec-28-10 08:22 PM   #204 
        - So what shall we call it... the failed war for independence?  salin   Dec-28-10 12:51 PM   #141 
           - You can call it whatever you want, the point remains the same--slavery was an issue,  Creative   Dec-28-10 02:19 PM   #152 
              - So it's Greed vs. Human Compassion Then and Now  Mojeoux   Dec-28-10 03:02 PM   #163 
     - I agree. You need to dig a little more beneath the surface.  EstimatedProphet   Dec-28-10 04:05 PM   #175 
  - I thought it was more about 'States Rights'  LynneSin   Dec-28-10 01:42 PM   #146 
  - See up thread, just as segregation was a 'state's rights' issue.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-28-10 02:55 PM   #159 
  - It also seems very odd that none of the Free States seemed to find a need to secede to protect...  JVS   Dec-28-10 04:14 PM   #176 
  - The only "right" in question was the right to be a slave state  Recursion   Dec-28-10 02:57 PM   #162 
  - You are correct, state's rights and trade (economics) were the primary reasons.  Creative   Dec-28-10 03:10 PM   #166 
     - Slavery is economics as in FREE LABOR. Ever take a look at the CSA Constitution?  neverforget   Dec-28-10 04:25 PM   #177 
        - I don't have to look at th CSA Constitution, for slavery was legal under the US Constitution  Creative   Dec-28-10 04:42 PM   #180 
           - Too inconvienent for ya that the Confederates enshrined slavery in their  neverforget   Dec-28-10 04:49 PM   #184 
              - And also enshrined protective barriers for the domestic "slave breeding" industry.  JVS   Dec-28-10 04:56 PM   #186 
              - Inconvenient? Actually, I find it disgusting; but no more disgusting  Creative   Dec-28-10 05:10 PM   #187 
                 - I see it's not disgusting enough to defend the Confederacy though  neverforget   Dec-28-10 05:19 PM   #188 
                    - You have purposefully misconstrued my position, for I have simply argued that  Creative   Dec-28-10 05:39 PM   #194 
                       - How can you possibly say that Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to exist  neverforget   Dec-28-10 08:10 PM   #203 
  - This BS revisionism started with the neocons  Scruffy1   Dec-28-10 03:50 PM   #173 
  - I fail to see what this has to do with Michael Vick. n/t  rucky   Dec-28-10 08:05 PM   #202 
  - Is there really still major denial?  MellowDem   Dec-28-10 08:56 PM   #205 
     - Major Denial is now Dearly Departed.  Warren Stupidity   Dec-29-10 03:21 PM   #222 
        - Ah that's too bad. I was hoping for a response to #203. The historical  neverforget   Dec-29-10 03:27 PM   #223 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC