[Vision2020] Re: Definition of Neo-Confederate Was: Ed Iverson: Wilson's Biweekly Mouthpiece

[Chasuk]

On 9/29/05, Nick Gier <ngier at uidaho.edu> wrote of Doug Wilson:

> he cannot say that he is not a "neo-Confederate" for the following
> reasons:

>  ·Wilson wrote an editorial supporting the right of states to leave the
> Union.

This statement surprises me.  Are you saying that anyone who believes
that states have the right to leave the Union (as I certainly do)
qualifies as a "neo-Confederate?"  I know that you listed other
traits, which I excised for brevity, but I was hoping you could
clarify.  Does one need to hold views matching more than one of the
listed traits, or does the single item of believing in the right of
succession make one a neo-Confederate?

Consider this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Being that everyone's perception of abuse and usurpation may be
different, wouldn't it be disingenuous, even hypocritical, to deny
others that right?

Note that I have no preconceptions regarding your own opinion on this
matter, but, as I do respect your opinion, I am curious as to what it
may be.  I guess Jim Meyer might call this intellectual masturbation,
but I'm truthfully not embarrassed.  :-)