Dead Confederates Blog

[unionblue]

If there was ever a moment of doubt about the Dead Confederate blog, Cash's endorsement should reassure us all.

Emotional responses and dislikes over one person that reflects badly on a completely different person reassures nothing and no one. Its just worthless and petty.

 

[ole]

Emotional responses and dislikes over one person that reflects badly on a completely different person reassures nothing and no one. Its just worthless and petty.

And silly.

 

[jgoodguy]

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

Bottom line is you have to have evidence. Just accusing someone of bias does not cut it.

 

[huskerblitz]

I had forgotten Andy was the author of the blog when I cited it in the Crater thread. Having seen Andy's posts on our Forum and in his blog and won't hesitate to cite him in the future.

Meh....I have no idea what blogs belong to any particular member, but I'm slowly picking it up. At times it seems like newer members are suppose to know when they begin posting.

 

[ole]

Meh....I have no idea what blogs belong to any particular member, but I'm slowly picking it up. At times it seems like newer members are suppose to know when they begin posting.

You kinda hafta pick it up as you go along. Many didn't come here to toot their own horns.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

You either have evidence or it is simply an opinion. Do you have quotes to prove this.

As to facts.

The Southern Secession was not constitutional according to the Supreme Court Decision Texas v White.
6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States
That is fact. Anything else is opinion.

Northern invasion of the South was constitutional.
Art I section 8 US Constitution

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Dear jgoodguy,
You mention that in case of revolution, or consent of the States they can separate. These apply to Texas as well as the rest of the Southern States. Both the State Legislatures and the people with referendums decided to separate from the Union. This is consent. It was also a revolution. Texas v White occurred in 1869, four years after the end of the Civil War. The judgment of the Supreme Court for a particular case little has to do with things that happened four years before this judgment was made.
Northern invasion of the CSA was unconstitutional. Since the states had departed with the free will of the people, i.e. by consent, the separation was valid and true to the spirit of the American Constitution. The war Lincoln waged against them was unconstitutional.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Dear jgoodguy,
Texas v White occurred in 1869, four years after the end of the Civil War. The judgment of the Supreme Court for a particular case little has to do with things that happened four years before this judgment was made.

In the U.S. all court cases are decided after the fact. I would assume that the same is true in the Greek judiciary as well. It's kind of hard to have a court decision before the fact.

Northern invasion of the CSA was unconstitutional. Since the states had departed with the free will of the people, i.e. by consent, the separation was valid and true to the spirit of the American Constitution. The war Lincoln waged against them was unconstitutional.

In the first place there was no invasion. One invades other countries, not rebellious sections of your own. In the second place secession as practiced by the Southern states is a violation of the Constitution, as the Supreme Court ruled. Third, the Constitution gives the government the power to suppress insurrection in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

 

[Nathanb1]

Dear jgoodguy,
You mention that in case of revolution, or consent of the States they can separate. These apply to Texas as well as the rest of the Southern States. Both the State Legislatures and the people with referendums decided to separate from the Union. This is consent. It was also a revolution. Texas v White occurred in 1869, four years after the end of the Civil War. The judgment of the Supreme Court for a particular case little has to do with things that happened four years before this judgment was made.
Northern invasion of the CSA was unconstitutional. Since the states had departed with the free will of the people, i.e. by consent, the separation was valid and true to the spirit of the American Constitution. The war Lincoln waged against them was unconstitutional.
Civil War Scholar.

If you're going to sling around the name of Texas, I'm going to sling back--very hard. No one who's been here wants me to go on a rant, but I will. The people of Texas were worked into a frenzy by some congenital liars, led by one particular U.S. Senator formerly from South Carolina, and did some incredibly stupid stuff....like seceding. It took a while, but they did it. Lies, lies, and more lies. I don't blame the common people, because it was done very well. But that case once and for all settled the deal.

And no, it wasn't an "invasion," but you'll believe what you want to believe. The only nice thing is that you aren't a voter and can't do any harm here. Spout away.

 

[huskerblitz]

We're really getting back into this again? Yawn....

And here I thought this thread was going to be about blogs.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

If there was ever a moment of doubt about the Dead Confederate blog, Cash's endorsement should reassure us all.

This is exactly what I was talking about; rather than discussing the blog's content in any way, its detractors were dismissing it because the name made them uncomfortable, and in much the same manner you (and apparently the five other posters who chose to like your comment, including the one whose complete unwillingness to cite any sources at all beyond their opinion is what led to this thread in the first place) are further willing to dismiss it because someone whom you dislike personally considers it a valid source. In what way is your animosity towards a third party a reflection on the site itself?

Dear jgoodguy,
You mention that in case of revolution, or consent of the States they can separate. These apply to Texas as well as the rest of the Southern States. Both the State Legislatures and the people with referendums decided to separate from the Union. This is consent. It was also a revolution. Texas v White occurred in 1869, four years after the end of the Civil War. The judgment of the Supreme Court for a particular case little has to do with things that happened four years before this judgment was made.

Yeah, that's how Supreme Court cases work; they rule on the Constitutionality of matters that have usually passed. That's exactly what that judgement means.

You're also apparently not entirely clear how secession actually worked, because while some states used the legislature, most used a completely separate representative convention... and one had a governor who tried to secede by fiat when the convention voted 98-1 against secession. Only three had popular referendums (though, in your very mild defense, Texas was one of those).

Northern invasion of the CSA was unconstitutional. Since the states had departed with the free will of the people, i.e. by consent, the separation was valid and true to the spirit of the American Constitution. The war Lincoln waged against them was unconstitutional.
Civil War Scholar.

You've never actually read the US Constitution, have you? Nowhere in the document is unilateral secession authorized, and use of military forces to put down insurrection is specifically authorized; in short, you've got it exactly backwards. The "spirit of the American Constitution" (not to mention the actual letter of it) is one of union, representative federalism, and informed republicanism. You seem to have confused it with the unruly mob that was the Athenian Senate.

 

[cash]

Perhaps you can provide specifics. Did you learn how to do that when you (edited by Moderator NB1) earned your MA?
Watch the insults. If I can't call people names, neither can you guys.

But ... but ... but ... I didn't call him a name. [pouts]

 

[cash]

I don't get into these discussions nowadays but I do stand up and testify when appropriate so for the record:

IMO the afore-mentioned blog is not biased and the entries are based on sound research and source materials.

Call me what you will.

May I call you correct?

 

[cash]

Notice that the author is not here defending his blog? He won't, because that would be as silly as the attacks.

He doesn't need to do so. He is an actual Civil War Scholar, not a poser who makes an empty claim.

 

[cash]

Meh....I have no idea what blogs belong to any particular member, but I'm slowly picking it up. At times it seems like newer members are suppose to know when they begin posting.

It's pretty easy in this case. Andy's name is on the blog page.

 

[huskerblitz]

I've never looked at it.

 

[cash]

You mention that in case of revolution, or consent of the States they can separate. These apply to Texas as well as the rest of the Southern States. Both the State Legislatures and the people with referendums decided to separate from the Union. This is consent.

No, it's not. You don't understand the concept. Secession with consent means the consent of the people of the other states.

It was also a revolution.

The Declaration of Independence spells out the justification for revolution. Such was not the case with Texas.

Texas v White occurred in 1869, four years after the end of the Civil War. The judgment of the Supreme Court for a particular case little has to do with things that happened four years before this judgment was made.

You also don't understand the Supreme Court. They rule on what the law was at the time of the action.

Northern invasion of the CSA was unconstitutional.

As usual, wrong.

Since the states had departed with the free will of the people, i.e. by consent, the separation was valid and true to the spirit of the American Constitution. The war Lincoln waged against them was unconstitutional.

As usual, wrong.

 

[Nathanb1]

I've never looked at it.

You should. It's really good. And I thought that before Andy was my friend. (I used it in class here and there).

 

[jgoodguy]

Dear jgoodguy,
You mention that in case of revolution, or consent of the States they can separate. These apply to Texas as well as the rest of the Southern States. Both the State Legislatures and the people with referendums decided to separate from the Union. This is consent. It was also a revolution. Texas v White occurred in 1869, four years after the end of the Civil War. The judgment of the Supreme Court for a particular case little has to do with things that happened four years before this judgment was made.
Northern invasion of the CSA was unconstitutional. Since the states had departed with the free will of the people, i.e. by consent, the separation was valid and true to the spirit of the American Constitution. The war Lincoln waged against them was unconstitutional.
Civil War Scholar.

The Supreme Court of the US determines what is and is not Constitutional.
It ruled that unilateral secession 4 years before was not Constitutional.

The rest is mere opinion.

 

[Nathanb1]

But ... but ... but ... I didn't call him a name. [pouts]

Your face will freeze that way, you know. My mom said. Pretty is as pretty does.

 

[huskerblitz]

You should. It's really good. And I thought that before Andy was my friend. (I used it in class here and there).

Okay.....but, um,......where does one find it here?