Mike Lamb believes that my post discussing secession as a reasonable response offers members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Group an ideal opportunity to trap me … whatever that means.
However for their side, the enemy, he is a “great” historian. It is for the sake of showing them ALL to be wrong, that their agenda, their teaching of revisionist history is wrong, and that such is destroying not only us but also others, that is the reason to confront him. Plus at the same time it exonerates our ancestors and what they claimed, fought and died for.
The thing is, we need to pick our battles instead of haphazardly attacking everything we might disagree with. This type of attacking is why we get bogged down and make so little progress. Done correctly a lot of educating can be correctly given the people while making our enemies to be shown to be the fools they are. In other words there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Problem is our side has no formal unified education in addressing such problems from people such as Simpson, nor have we been much willing to even try to learn correctly as a group. Everything has always been piecemeal, which is not helping our cause. I just thought this was a good opportunity to do something together correctly, something with a purpose and meaning that could benefit all of us. I also found it odd that such an easy opportunity presented itself at such an odd time….
Timing is everything, isn’t it? And it looks like such an easy opportunity …
Now watch what happens …
Another poster responds:
The question is not whether secession was REASONABLE, but whether it was CONSTITUTIONAL – and the answer to that is “yes.”
The question was whether secession was reasonable. I can’t help it if people can’t understand what they read. Maybe they are finding it’s not so easy after all.
Yet it is Mr. Lamb who falls into a trap …
He says secession was a reasonable act. But it is what Simpson doesn’t say, is what we are looking for. He is leading us with the statement by giving no clear indication of his beliefs concerning secession. Yet it “almost” appears he believes it is legal. This raises the 1st question to him; Is secession legal or not? And was it legal before the war? Is it legal today?
All interesting questions … but not relevant to my inquiry. It’s enough to point out that Americans at the time disagreed over the constitutionality of secession, and that the arguments rested upon particular constructions of language and interpretations of implications.
Gee, perhaps this isn’t so easy after all, eh, folks?
However he answers you have him…. You have him even if he says it is not legal.
I don’t think Mr. Lamb anticipated my answer.
Bonus shot: Ask him; did any state have to give a reason for their secession? Was it required by the US Constitution? The above is to be referred to him if he believes secession was a right and legal.
As I have not offered the answers Mr. Lamb wants me to offer, the bonus shot misfires.
Lamb’s answer is a simple one:
The states or Federal Government did not have to violate any contract in order for any state to secede. It was completely voluntary. You can follow up on this by reading some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. He stated that there could be a time when a state or part of the United States may wish to leave the union and divide themselves. He cited the Louisiana area and its’ recent purchase as part of an example.
What Mr. Jefferson may have said as his opinion isn’t a definitive declaration of anything except what he believed.
The above was actually part of my “setup” for Simpson. Fore it mattered NOT if slavery was given as a pretext or the tariffs. Both as well as NO reason at all was completely left tot he discretion of each state. So, no reason was even necessary for any state to secede.
Says who? After all, the southern states gave reasons why they seceded. I think I’d trust secessionists on what they believed. Moreover, Calhoun and others were very specific that one must justify the act of secession by specifying the violation. Mr. Lamb simply doesn’t know his history. Hmmm …. about that trap … 🙂
What I am trying to show everyone is that we can’t just go in and start making claims without some form of framing our attacks. I am in a sense trying to show you how to cut off by flanking his statements so he can’t backup and claim something entirely different later when theings really do start to pin him down. We are simply boxing him in on the sides so we can polish him off with a straight frontal attack, directly addressing his claims and assertions after we have cut off his ability to side step issues.
And how’s that working for you, Mr. Lamb?
Be sure and avoid making direct statements unless they are non-debatable final statements concerning a point of contention. Do ALWAYS try and phrase your responses as questions NOT statements. This automatically puts your opponent on the defensive as they have to address a question instead of countering you with a question or attacking you by mis-representing any statements you make.
Yup, I’m worried. Yawn.
I do not care if my/our enemy reads my playbook and knows how I am setting them up. The way the responses should be made is in such a way that no amount of fore knowledge will give them any advantage by knowing how they are being attacked. The reason is because of a philosophy known as LOGIC. Understanding logic in greater detail also means one understands that there can only be ONE final answer to any posed problems. If anything, as the enemy does figure parts of this logical process out, his understanding would only leave him more confused because he ends up having no logical answers in his assertions against you. He becomes trapped in his own mind of evil!
I’m sure Mr. Lamb believes this.
Elsewhere Mr. Lamb’s a bit more candid about what he’s doing:
I no longer consider debating as my line of attack against the enemy, nor in trying to educate others concerning history as well as theology or anything else. When a person debates another person you are actually looking fro some common ground with the hopes that an agreement can be had while acting in a gentlemanly fashion. This is has NOT been possible among us for many years as the different sides are way too far apart in philosophy and ideology. What I actually doing in confronting my adversaries is using an argument called polemics or being a polemicist confrontationalist. Look up the term and know it is based on holding dogmatic principles on an extremely contentious thesis. It is an argument where you simply support your views while refuting and disproving your opponents. I NEVER go into a debate/argument seeking to convince the other person of anything. I simply lay things out in order for all others to read and determine for themselves which side is most correct, which side states the truth for their understanding. NEVER think you will make your opponent see your way or change any opinion of any dialogue with you.
“I no longer consider debating as my line of attack against the enemy, nor in trying to educate others concerning history as well as theology or anything else.” Exactly.
One of the great tactics I now use with GREAT success is correlate modern politics of today, especially this upcoming fraudulent election with its’ roots and precedents being originally established by Lincoln. Everything, all our problems today can be traced back to Lincoln and his war against the Republic. One of the great quotes I use is from Lincoln stating, “In saving the union I have destroyed the Republic.” I ask everyone; Which is more important, saving the union or saving the Republic? You can only fully save ONE!
Uh huh. Love those Lincoln “quotes.”
As I told Valerie and others many months ago, don’t throw too many points of contention against your foes at one time. This leaves them the option to only attack what they consider your weakest point and it leaves all your other points hanging never to be considered while vilifying you over just the one. Not only that, your opponents are actually too brain dead to consider more than a couple of points at a time. They simply do not possess the ability to correlate many points into one overall final conclusion with any degree of competency.
I’m sure Mr. Lamb believes this, just as he believes he’s defeated me in argument after argument, although somehow no one ever sees where or when this happened, other than in Mr. Lamb’s rich fantasy life.
Mike Lamb’s a fitting member of the gift that keeps on giving.
Be very careful, Brooks. You are in danger of being flanked and subjected to a pincer movement. Those steel-trap minds will take big bites out of you.
Oh yes, I know. I’m in big trouble now.
Mr. Lamb’s fantasy world becomes more interesting every time he types.
It does appear PalmettoPatriot has responded to his post. Michael wrote an interesting tidbit, but still neither is actually addressing the core problem. Although Simpson has already shown part of his poker hand by actually admitting we do not have a right to “self-determination” as a people. Only Simpson states it this way in resposne to Michael, “Let me rephrase your question: was the decision of Abraham Lincoln and the United States to go to war against the Confederacy to preserve the Union reasonable? Yes.”
Now think about what Simpson just said and what must be correlated to form this final opinion. In essence Simpson has to mean that secession is NOT legal, nor a right. Remember I earlier stated in his opening statement that he wasn’t clear on this very issue, and Michael partially agreed with him, both still leaving open Simpson’s escape that it wasn’t legal and that’s the direction Simpson is headed. Michael didn’t close off the escape routes as I stated needed to be done before you directly attack his assertions.
Also at this point it is becoming hard to justify secession because of slavery alone, unless Michael wishes to add a more encompassing approach of State’s Rights which is the basis for secession in the first place, and this does NOT need slavery as an excuse to secede. Michael has also failed to address the post I posted here concerning the 4 states of NC, VA, TN and AR leaving, not because of slavery or tariffs, but simply because they saw State’s Rights being violated by a Federal Government that was becoming oppressive. Again this had NOTHING to do with slavery, and it had everything to do with State’s Rights.
When this point is driven home and the enemy cannot dispute State’s Rights, everything else in Simpson’s topic becomes a moot point, including what his minions has wrote! As it stands now, Simpson is dictating the terms of response from anyone he lets post there, and Michael is no exception.
As it stands now, Simpson believes the South deserved everything it got, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he hadn’t wished for more.
Oh goodness. Note that Mr. Lamb’s shifted from a right of secession to a right of self-determination. They are not the same thing. Furthermore, “the right of self-determination” is problematic … if he’d just think a bit. Set aside the easy one about the right of self-determination for slaves (which apparently Mr. Lamb does not support … guess it’s only white folks for him). What about the right of self-determination for white southern unionists? Guess he’s overlooked them, too.
Lincoln distinguished between a right of revolution and a right of secession. Mr. Lamb does not understand that. Moreover, I think that one can see the determination of advocates of southern independence in 1860-61 to work toward that end of independence as a reasonable response to the world as they saw it, regardless of one’s views about the constitutionality of secession. Lee understood the matter rather clearly when he said that secession was nothing but revolution … yet he could still see the case for separation.
I venture Lee knew something Mr. Lamb did not, but I’m perfectly willing to let Mr. Lamb denounce Robert E. Lee’s views on his own time. Surely he cannot endorse them without falling into … wait for it … a trap of his own making.
As I’ve addressed the secession of the upper South before, I see no need to repeat myself.
I am reminded of Road Runner cartoons. Like the coyote, he believes he is building an elaborate trap (in this case with pincers made of LOGIC) only to have it sprung on himself.
If only they can throw you back on your heels, then Stuart’s cavalry can come in from behind and trap the “enemy”. Then Washington will be at their mercy and Lincoln will have to flee.
These are truly strategic thinkers!
More nuggets from Mike Lamb:
I am all for the black person voting, but NOT as it is done today. Matter of fact I am not for anyone voting according to the allowed standards of today regardless of color, sex, religion or anything else. The vote MUST be limited and I would suppose only about 15-20% of the people voting today are actually qualified by knowledge and means to vote in an election, and it be remotely fair.
But I’m sure Mr. Lamb would include himself among that 15-20%.
DO remember that Simpson does NOT believe in self-determination in contemporary form, or any other way that I know of. He has stated this to PalmettoPatriot in his post to him.
So much for reading comprehension. Scratch that 15-20%.
From this we can know that Simpson is NOT for individual freedom and liberty as it pertains to each person, but rather the only alternative is that he believes self-determination is based on the collective. This only reproves Simpsons Marxist, socialistic philosophy and ideology. this is why people, especially Southerners can honestly call Simpson a Communist and Marxist. It is simply because he believes as one, holding the philosophy of Karl Marx himself and he wishes it on all of us and he teaches this crap to the unsuspecting students as “Revised History”!
Nazi one day, communist the next, then a damnyankee abolitionist … recall when I was just a northern liberal?
Simpson, you are slow as molasses! You are just now figuring out that I am correlating what you say and write with its’ REAL and CONTEMPORARY meaning! NOT its’ meaning for the moment and times in order to suit what you want it to mean. Words do NOT change in their meanings. Phrases always mean the same thing and impart the same ideas and thoughts when the meanings are left unchanged. Of course you know as well as I that it was Karl Marx that taught that revising words and history could and would change the culture and heritage and even the understanding of a whole society and nation. Is that why you believe in documents being called “Living Documents”, so they can be interpreted to suit your agenda and your minions? You know, just like Lincoln interpreted the US Constitution for himself and decided he could wage war that way. He done and admitted to Congress that he interpreted it the best he could. Your Marxist past is catching up with you…. and it is a dirty word!