Mitch McConnell, Confederate Flag supporter
(rebel, stars and bars, dixie, hate, heritage, history, war between the states, civil war)
Posted on 07/01/2015 9:02:17 PM PDT by celmak
The inner democrat really comes out when it comes to the confederate battle flag. Those who wave it say they support your right to free speech as long as it agrees with us. Because if you disagree with us then you’re just uneducated. I’d expect that from democrats. It’s sad to hear that from republicans defending a flag born by democrats waved in battle against them and the United States. And I agree that democrat voters who oppose said flag are uneducated about it because their party created it in the 1st place, but republican voters who oppose it know why we do.
“So if Cuba began to shell Guantanamo, that would be fine with you.”
Um....No. We have had a treaty in place for over a hundred years, to LEASE Gitmo.
“From what I’ve read when the southern states rebelled they immediately began seizing anything that they desired.”
You should read “The Confederacy”, by Charles Roland.
The confederacy did not immediately go out and seize forts. Rather, they immediately sent a peace delegation to Washington DC, and offered:
- to pay a fair share of the federal debt
- to PURCHASE all federal installations in the south
- free passage of the Mississippi river.
That’s the first thing they did, if you’d like to know.
Now, just about every one of the installations you listed has something in common: No bloodshed. The local confederates knocked on the door, and the personnel (often one man) were told their time was up. And the personnel were allowed free passage to the north. Really only two forts held out, Sumter being one of them. Seems downright gentlemanlike.
And the South Carolina legislature had deeded the site of Fort Sumter free and clear to the U.S. government.
So if I knock on your door, tell you to get out otherwise I'll blow your house up, and you do then does that mean I legally own it?
The more proper example would be if we each owned a side of a duplex...and ojr families were free to come and go to either side. Then you start telling me what to do and I say screw it, we’ll both just stay in our houses. Put you persist in having family members positioned in my stairwell with a gun pointed at me.
Just a little thing called sovereignty. But even though they had sovereignty they still offered to pay for it. Btw Cuba still maintains sovereignty over gitmo.
You say the Southern states wanted to pay for debt and property, and claim they sent a delegation to negotiate that. While that may be debatable, wouldn't the time to pay for debt and property be before you walked away from it and before you seize it? The South didn't do that, so one has to wonder just how serious any offer to pay would have been?
Well, yeah. The sovereign state of South Carolina, through an act of her legislature, did "...cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory..." So having relinquished all claims to Sumter, what rule of law gave them the power to say, "Hey, just kidding. It's really ours?"
But even though they had sovereignty they still offered to pay for it.
If true, then shouldn't they have paid before taking control? And if the owners said "not interested" then what gave them the power to just take it?
Btw Cuba still maintains sovereignty over gitmo.
That wasn't my question, but even so by your definitions of sovereignty then Cuba has a right to just take Gitmo back at any time, right? By force if necessary? And you would say they were legally in the right?
With a previous government whose actions have been repudiated by the current government. The Cuban government has repeatedly demanded that Guantanamo be handed back to them. At what point are they justified in shooting? And incidentally, the State of South Carolina DEEDED Ft. Sumter to the US government. So Guantanamo is merely leased while Sumter was legally OWNED by the US government. Or did a self-proclaimed country based on the protection of property rights find property rights incovenient in that case?
Mitch McConnell, Confederate Flag supporter
(rebel, stars and bars, dixie, hate, heritage, history, war between the states, civil war)
Isn’t the first time Mitch was a flip-flopper.
During the Revolution an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 slaves tried to escape, encouraged by British offers of emancipation.
On November 14, 1775 the last Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued “Dunmore’s Proclamation”. This document declared martial law, condemned all rebels as traitors, and also declared free all “indented Servants and Negroes free that are able and willing to bear arms”. Dunmore organized them into his Ethiopian Regiment
The Philipsburg Proclamation of June 30, 1779 went beyond this. Issued by General Henry Clinton it proclaimed all slaves owned by Patriots to be free regardless of their willingness to fight. It offered freedom and land to any slaves who left their master.
Until very recently, our official stance on Cuba was the revolutionary government was illegitimate. Our treat was with the existing government at the time, and it doesn’t matter that Castro had a coup. Now Barry recognizes Cuba’s revolutionary government, and I honestly don’t know what will happen to gitmo. International relations can get messy, can’t they...which is why he white hat/black hat version of the civil war is so lacking. BTW, good Ole Fidel cashed our first lease payment, after he seized power...validating that he approved of the contract.
” Just show some testicular fortitude, and man up and admit the South (not the North) fought due to slavery.”
You mean slavery as practiced by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and the majority of American Presidents prior to Lincoln? I thought so.
The seven deep south slave states seceded because they believed that the Republican party was a hostile, sectional party and would use the resources of the national government against them.
Lincoln called up his 75,000 man army to force these seven seceding states back into the union, in a manner reminiscent of events 90 years earlier. Unlike the first time, compulsory union would defeat independence.
The next wave of secession came in response to Lincoln’s decision to wage war against the original seceding states. But several slave states remained in the Union entirely unmolested by Lincoln.
What rights does congress have in a sovereign nation.
The southern states backed out of the compact...a divorce, if you will. The US Congress meant nothing at that point. Yet the confederacy still wanted to PAY for the forts...because they wanted the divorce to be peaceful. Take a read of era immediately prior to the civil war...and ask yourself which side was beating the war drums, and which side just wanted to be left the heck alone.
Mark Levine made a great point the other day about a SCOTUS case that ripped from the states the ability to set their own congressional districts, and gave that authority to the federal government. He asked “Do you really think the states voluntarily entered into an agreement, in which a federal government would have that authority?” The answer is, of course not...and the SCOTUS decision was wrong and not in line with the intentions of the original framers. The case dealt with Arizona, I believe. Two years ago, the reconstruction era federal boot on southern election officials was lifted...and now its been pressed down again, this time on the necks of all the states.
But his argument could just as easily apply to the confederacy. Do you really think the southern states signed up for this? A system in which they we held in a compact at the point of a gun? I don’t think so.
Neither does this guy:
“If they [the founding fathers] had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.” - U.S. Grant
Ironically, the United States position on the confederate government was much the same.
Castro took power by force, an unelected dictator.
The southern states had democratically elected legislatures, and the states exercised their right to abstain from the union.
If the US Government looks at these two as the same, shame on them.
“The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the situation require, to resume the exercise of its functions as such in the most unlimited extent.” George Tucker, 1803.
How would America look today if the South had won?
Not surpising, he acts like a demorat the way he fights against conservatives - especially against TP Republicans. In fact, he might as well be a demorat.
Didn’t go far in school did you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.