I've never understood the romanticization of the Union. It has lasted far too long, it is horribly run and governed, but it accomplished its goal of crushing independence; trading one form of slavery for another. I imagine it would anger Mr. Reynolds to suggest that Abraham Lincoln, however personally admirable he might have been in some ways, bore huge responsibility for the tyranny of federalism -- if he had honored the idea of independence, the war probably would never have been started, leaving everyone (and especially the South) better off.
One suspects that for a certain sort of infantile mind, pro-Union statements provide the same sort of reassuring sense of conformity that fascism has provided. This, I guess, explains the weird strain of pro-Union sympathy that one finds among a certain segment of fascists. Or, of course, there's always narcissism as an explanation.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not in any way defending the idiocy of the author he is commenting about, or the confederacy, or slavery - merely pointing out the bias of the post.)
UPDATE: Sgt. Stryker also takes exception to those "infantile pro-Union" statements.
UPDATE 2: Instapundit still doesn't get it. It's about States' Rights. The Founding Fathers gave us the Declaration of... anyone? anyone? Bueller? Reynolds? the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE. Now class, did Lincoln allow the states to remain INDEPENDENT? anyone? anyone? Frye? The answer is No, he declared war on the INDEPENDENT states, and forced them into DEPENDENCE on a more totalitarian regime, which would lead to the federal income tax, the Social Security Ponzi scheme, and Roe v Wade.
(again, for the hyperbole-challenged among you, I'm overstating the case to make a point)
No comments:
Post a Comment