Thread:High Prince Imrahil/@comment-26210095-20160718114659/@comment-26347028-20160718212300

High Prince Imrahil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

High Prince Imrahil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

High Prince Imrahil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

High Prince Imrahil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

High Prince Imrahil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: In a way, yes, but the things that really defined it weren't the battles, or small acts of heroism. Those were just that - small. So... the entire war that defined The Confederacy in the first place is a very minimal part of The Confederacy's polocies? Of its policies, yes. Of what made its policies, perhaps not. But in the face of what its policies actually were, when compared to what we can presume came from their utter hatred of the north - it was already there. So no, their war didn't shape their policies. A hatred of The North? That I do not deny. But every rebellion has a hatred of their original government, hence rebellion. The Americans had a hatred of Britain, but that calmed down very quickly. I'm saying that was all the war changed, which was already there. I'm sorry, you lost me. Pardon? The only view which the war actually changed was their hatred of the North. And that hardly changed. I fail to see how that connects to the argument.. whether or not their views changed in the few years of war, I fail to see as relivent. You were trying to say that shaped them. No, I'm trying to say that it reflected them. That the views represented on the battlfield were a reflection of the views of the nation as a whole. Of the people of the nation, but not of the actions that nation took which shaped what it did - and thus how it should be viewed. If you kill someone (illegally), but think killing is wrong - yet were trying to kill them - you're no less a murderer.