Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there are suburban kids running around wishing they were "gangta's", does not mean they will not learn better then they grow up
Well - all I can say is my foster daughter (soon to be my actual daughter) understands that the flag is not a racist symbol as some try to make it out to be - and she came to this conclusion all on her own -
Obviously, you disagree - and thats fine. But, don't try to "force" your interpertation on others who disagree with you.
I still maintain - those who say there is such thing as "hate speech" are full of c_rap
Well - all I can say is my foster daughter (soon to be my actual daughter) understands that the flag is not a racist symbol as some try to make it out to be - and she came to this conclusion all on her own -
Obviously, you disagree - and thats fine. But, don't try to "force" your interpertation on others who disagree with you.
I still maintain - those who say there is such thing as "hate speech" are full of c_rap
So Hitler's speeches were not hate speech? Just using this to make a point.
Also the Swastika was not did not start as a symbol of hate. It started as a Hindu good luck charm.
And no where did I force anything. I am stating my opinion. We don't agree. I am cool with that. I the type of person that can sit down and have a drink with a person I don't agree with. Where is the fun in life if everyone agreed?
Did you start this thread for everyone to agree with you or to hear a wide base of ideas on the subject?
She is 18. She know as much as most 18 year olds.....not much....this is coming from a 27 year old who is still learning. She knows what you taught her about the flag. Not saying that is a bad thing. But it is what it is.
And stop with the extra titles. No need to qualify your relationship with foster and so to be. She is your daughter, that is good enough. I am big supporter of adoption.
But anyway, it comes down to whether or not one believes the Southern states had a constitutional right to secede and form their own nation. If you don't think they did, then it could follow that the United States (i.e. northern states which kept the name by default) had every right to re-supply the fort.
On the other hand, to those of us who believe they did (wise or not) then the Confederacy was a soveriegn nation and possessed with the right all nations have. That is, to act in their own defense. And in this case, Ft. Sumter was an installation occupied by armed troops of a foriegn nation. And this could not be permanently tolerated.
EVERY nation which has ever declared its independence from another has acted in the same manner. The British had forts and other government installations on American soil when the colonies were British posessions. So, when they stated their intention to "secede" from England as seperate and sovereign states, then band together in a new confederation of their own, were they unjustified in taking over the said forts and installations? (At least in the case of the South, the Confederate government offered to compensate the U.S. for the cost of the fort.)
The first worthwhile argument. Did the South have a Constitutional right to secede? Perhaps, but the place we test Constitutional questions is in the Supreme Court. Had the South sued to secede and won in court, then Lincoln would have been forced to let them go. Foolishly they chose a course of action which bypassed the legal route and chose a military route, one the southern generals knew have virtually no chance of success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Negotiation? It was the South who sent commissioners up north originally to try and find a peaceful settlement, and offer the northern troops every honorable opportunity to withdraw, with the promise of safe transportation back home. But Lincoln had no intention of allowing the South to secede and, knowing majority opinion in the north was to let the South go in peace (as they wanted), instead ingeniously manuevered the CSA into a position where they would have no choice but to act militarily, and thereby justify an invasion on other grounds than secession. And yes, it worked. He even said as much himself, later....
If the Cubans send a delegation to Washington and offer us an honorable opportunity to withdraw from Gitmo, what do you think will happen? Are you that delusional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Restore order? One restores order to disorder. Where was there disorder? The seven Lower South states voted thru proper legislative means to sever a political connection with northern states (again, wise or foolish as may be) which they felt were hostile to their own interests (for many reasons, then and future) and it would be best for all concerned. How did this threaten the North?
States that are in armed rebellion don't constitute disorder? What country doesn't militarily put down rebellions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
In fact, it wasn't until Lincoln ordered an invasion of the Lower South that the states of the Upper South joined the Confederacy (earlier, they had actually, each of them, voted it down decisively).
Actually all he ordered was the recapture of Sumter, other forts and customs-houses. Other states seceded rather than fulfill their obligation to provide troops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The original Confederate policy was to attempt and negotiate (that word again) a defensive and economic alliance with the Union, including opening up the Mississippi River for free navigation and trade. Hell, if the Lincoln administration been willing to truly negotiate a peaceful solution with a new nation causing no threat to his own, even Ft. Sumter might have been mutually occupied by soldiers of both north and South.
Wasn't going to happen. Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue, but not secession. The South foolishly overplayed a losing hand.
The first worthwhile argument. Did the South have a Constitutional right to secede? Perhaps, but the place we test Constitutional questions is in the Supreme Court. Had the South sued to secede and won in court, then Lincoln would have been forced to let them go. Foolishly they chose a course of action which bypassed the legal route and chose a military route, one the southern generals knew have virtually no chance of success.
If I think hard, I bet I can come up with one you have made as well, reckon? And now once again that the mutual and irrelevant barbs are over...
Anyway, the Supreme Court cannot decide questions of this nature in any kind of binding way. Government by consent of the governed is what was at stake, and that principle is intrinsic to the very thing won in the American Revolution. And besides, we all know how Lincoln would have followed if the SCOTUS had ruled on a question that heretofore few disputed the right to do anyway. He would have ignored it, just as he did with the habeus corpus decision.
There was no "legal route" to by-pass, in any event. The Constitution, in spelling out the limited powers delegated to the federal government, did not grant to right to use force to coerce a member state to remain part of what was taken for granted was a voluntary contract among soveriegn states.
Quote:
If the Cubans send a delegation to Washington and offer us an honorable opportunity to withdraw from Gitmo, what do you think will happen? Are you that delusional?
No, but you certainly are, if you draw this kind of ludicrous analogy. Either that or grasping at straws.
For one thing Cuba was never a party to the United States Constitution. For another, the loss of Ft. Sumter constituted no military threat nor loss of security to the North. How could it? The South had no plans to invade the Union. On the other hand, as has been stated time after time, they wanted to negotiate a mutually beneficial trade and military alliance with the Union. Lincoln's ingenious plan was to use it to justify an invasion of the South.
Quote:
States that are in armed rebellion don't constitute disorder? What country doesn't militarily put down rebellions?
It was not a rebellion, and evidence of that has been provided many times before, from the horses mouth, so to speak, in fact. Once again, Salmon Chase, Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to Edwin Stanton:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled."
The South had no intention of attempting to alter nor overthrow the U.S. government, but rather to seperate themselves from a political connection with the northern states.
Of course, to make your case, I understand it is necessary for you to term it a rebellion, regardless of evidence othewise.
Quote:
all he ordered was the recapture of Sumter, other forts and customs-houses. Other states seceded rather than fulfill their obligation to provide troops.
Which again goes back to historical perspective, as brought up in an earlier post. If there was a right to secession, and for soveriegn states to peacefully form a new nation, then these forts constituted armed troops of foreign power on CSA territory. Lincoln used it as an excuse to invade the South, in spite of every effort by the CSA to peacefully settle the question.
Also, the other states had no "obligation" to furnish troops for the unconstitutional excercise of invading states of the new Confederacy which constituted no threat to them. Even Maryland and Delaware, states which rejected secession all the way, were appalled by such a request.
Quote:
Wasn't going to happen. Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue, but not secession. The South foolishly overplayed a losing hand.
This argues a bit from result, but regardless, whether or not secession was the right move can be debated. Many Southerners argued against it (Robert E. Lee, Sam Houston, etc). But it was perfectly constitutional, and it was the Lincoln administration which chose the path that lead to war.
To be frank...yes. In most cases (i.e. the way history books write about the civil war). But that is not the point. In this case it is not a matter of might offend. It DOES offend. You may not like that fact, or believe it is justified. But it is true none the less.
I am not altogether clear on what you are saying. So let me ask again, as the question came up over the Six Flags displays common in Texas. Are you saying that because someone "might be offended" then the Confederate Flag should be pulled down. Before I reply, I want to clear that part up.
Meanwhile, again, there is no symbol in history that is not offensive to someone or some group. If we go down that path, it is more than a slippery slope, it is a dammed cliff!
Quote:
Don't go there. I have seen southerns get on the north about things things just as well. The Bible belt just about took over a political party and to legislate morality till said party dumped them. Point being don't act as if the self righteousness only comes from one side.
This is mixing apples and oranges. I personally classify myself as a Christian conservative, but not an activist by any means. But anyway, religious conservatism or liberalism is not necessarily sectional. In the realm related to the topic at hand, I am going to go there because it seems to be true. That is, Southerners are not generally prone to lecture northerners on their lifestyles, customs, history, etc.
Quote:
But do respect your right to disagree. I stated early I am not even for the banning of hate group such as the KKK and Stormfront. Not lumping you with those guys just making my point.
And vice-versa. I too am the type (as I noticed you said you were in another post) who can sit down and have a beer and engage in good discussion/debate. Hell, one of my best friends is a flaming semi-yankee liberal! LOL But anyway, the vast majority of Southerners who display the Confederate Flag out of a sense of heritage and regional pride are just as disgusted as anybody when they see hate groups flaunting it. In fact, I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. And each year our organization reaffirms a resolution which condemns the use of the Battle Flag by any individual or group which espouses hate or political extremism.
Quote:
Most of the people I talk with today are against the flag. And yes I am referring the blacks from the south. And I do talk from personal experience. Since we have not traded autobiographies I will not a assume to know your life story if you do not assume to know mine.
That is fair enough, for sure. But I hope we can agree that a blanket statement about how any given group "feels" on a particular matter needs to be heavily qualified. One can really only talk from the perspective of their own experience. And that goes both ways...
If I think hard, I bet I can come up with one you have made as well, reckon? And now once again that the mutual and irrelevant barbs are over...
Anyway, the Supreme Court cannot decide questions of this nature in any kind of binding way. Government by consent of the governed is what was at stake, and that principle is intrinsic to the very thing won in the American Revolution. And besides, we all know how Lincoln would have followed if the SCOTUS had ruled on a question that heretofore few disputed the right to do anyway. He would have ignored it, just as he did with the habeus corpus decision.
There was no "legal route" to by-pass, in any event. The Constitution, in spelling out the limited powers delegated to the federal government, did not grant to right to use force to coerce a member state to remain part of what was taken for granted was a voluntary contract among soveriegn states.
No, but you certainly are, if you draw this kind of ludicrous analogy. Either that or grasping at straws.
For one thing Cuba was never a party to the United States Constitution. For another, the loss of Ft. Sumter constituted no military threat nor loss of security to the North. How could it? The South had no plans to invade the Union. On the other hand, as has been stated time after time, they wanted to negotiate a mutually beneficial trade and military alliance with the Union. Lincoln's ingenious plan was to use it to justify an invasion of the South.
It was not a rebellion, and evidence of that has been provided many times before, from the horses mouth, so to speak, in fact. Once again, Salmon Chase, Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to Edwin Stanton:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled."
The South had no intention of attempting to alter nor overthrow the U.S. government, but rather to seperate themselves from a political connection with the northern states.
Of course, to make your case, I understand it is necessary for you to term it a rebellion, regardless of evidence othewise.
Which again goes back to historical perspective, as brought up in an earlier post. If there was a right to secession, and for soveriegn states to peacefully form a new nation, then these forts constituted armed troops of foreign power on CSA territory. Lincoln used it as an excuse to invade the South, in spite of every effort by the CSA to peacefully settle the question.
Also, the other states had no "obligation" to furnish troops for the unconstitutional excercise of invading states of the new Confederacy which constituted no threat to them. Even Maryland and Delaware, states which rejected secession all the way, were appalled by such a request.
This argues a bit from result, but regardless, whether or not secession was the right move can be debated. Many Southerners argued against it (Robert E. Lee, Sam Houston, etc). But it was perfectly constitutional, and it was the Lincoln administration which chose the path that lead to war.
Secession was tested in the venue chose by the south. It failed. Slavery was abolished and we began to put the most shameful institution of your country behind us. Unfortunately reconstruction was ended too soon and some of the evil inherent in the south's "peculiar institution" has been enshrined by revisionist history as something that was noble.
Lee no more fought the noble fight than a German general in WWII. The South was morally rotten to the core. The sooner we knock down the statues and burn the flags that glorify that era, the sooner we can begin to live up to the principals of this country. Montgomery Meigs had the right approach with Arlington. The Confederate flag is not racist like Nixon was not a crook.
the most shameful institution of "your" country? you live here too bub, actually, you are a southerner. how bout that mason dixon line! actually, slavery wasn't the most shameful institution of this countries history, that title belongs to the federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
Secession was tested in the venue chose by the south. It failed. Slavery was abolished and we began to put the most shameful institution of your country behind us. Unfortunately reconstruction was ended too soon and some of the evil inherent in the south's "peculiar institution" has been enshrined by revisionist history as something that was noble.
Lee no more fought the noble fight than a German general in WWII. The South was morally rotten to the core. The sooner we knock down the statues and burn the flags that glorify that era, the sooner we can begin to live up to the principals of this country. Montgomery Meigs had the right approach with Arlington. The Confederate flag is not racist like Nixon was not a crook.
It's ridiculous to say the Confederate flag is comparable to the swastika flag of Third-Reich Germany.
Denial doesn't make it so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
