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.
Ending slavery was an economic sanction, one which was hoped would shut things down in the South.
It didn't matter. Lincoln had no authority over the states in secession, and those were the states to which the proclamation applied. ...governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed... and that consent had been revoked.
Can you spell?
Maybe, maybe not. But he certainly had authority to deal with areas in a state of insurrection. And he used that authority.
It lends far greater credibility to one who would attack the form of my reply rather than the meaning if they can spell the name of the people they froth at the keyboard over.
The bottom line is that none of elmak's suppositions about me or my family has been correct. NOT even ONE! Why, that's a perfect score by yankee math, untainted by the treacly business of being correct.
More racists have marched under the US flag than any other, so you Yankees can spare me your false sanctimony.
Not by any definition I'm aware of.
Ending slavery was an economic sanction, one which was hoped would shut things down in the South.
True.
It didn't matter. Lincoln had no authority over the states in secession, and those were the states to which the proclamation applied.
As President of the United States - all the states, those rebelling and those not - he certainly did.
And plenty of true Americans have put racists in the ground. The Klan was and are not true Americans.
Odd, isn't it that the flag theyfly doesn't matter when it is the Stars and Stripes, but it becomes consummate evil if even one of them had carried the Southern Cross?
It's okay when so and so does it?
Reeks of being liberal.
Either all have the same Rights, or none does, some just have privileges denied to the rest.
If you can't wrap your head around the fundamentals of what a Right is, how can you uphold one? (Hint: that means you would have to agree with people having that right, even if you disagree with them.)
I see they teach grammar real good in Yankee schools, too.
It is highly debatable with the MSM just what 'public sentiment' is exactly. But it is interesting to note that the 'public sentiment' you are touting and those that you side with are progressive and Marxist. Not to mention largely anti white and anti-Western culture.
Interesting. I hadn’t noticed any marxists weighing in but I have seen no end of conservatives saying essentially the same thing. I guess the sentiment is cross-spectrum.
Thank you! :-)
D e m o R A T.
There, fixed it.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/06/the-pro-slavery-roots-of-the-modern-left/
Let me know your thoughts on it.
Maybe you missed what I’ve said in regards to the CBF so here it is: I oppose flying the CBF on government buildings, local, state and Federal. If someone or some group want to wave one, that’s their free speech right. And while I personally see the CBF not as a flag of ‘’racism’’ but of treason and separation, I don’t want to see it banned. Because if someones right to free speech can be denied then so can mine. Further more the CBF is a part of America’s history and to deny or ban it’s existence would be to act as if the Civil War didn’t happen.
YOU say the Southern States seceded because they feared the Republican government would turn against them. However, in their Articles of Sucession, the people who actually seceded said it was about slavery. Do we believe you, 150 years later, or the folks who actually seceded? If you can read the Articles of Secession and believe it was about anything except slavery, then you really need to get a refund on your English as a Second Language classes.
It wasn’t slavery. It was a back issue.
The war was about trade and the Mississippi River.
You could try reading the debates in favor of secession and then maybe you’d learn, although judging from your repeated attempts at being patronizing I have my doubts as to your intellectual ability.
Slavery was legal in the United States at the time of secession. The Fugitive Slave Acts were in effect requiring non-slave states to return runaways. Lincoln stated numerous times that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery. They could have remained in the union with slavery intact.
The first wave of seceding states left over a concern for their future within the union, where half of the states were pressuring them to end slavery. The upper south states left in response to Lincoln’s decision to use force. That is the historical record. But feel free to be a fool, you seem to have that as a goal.
When were the Democrats ever good? In the early 1800s they were all about slavery and Civil War to protect it. In the late 1800s, they made up the KKK and lynched blacks and Republicans. In 1912 they brought in the international bankers through the Federal Reserve. In the 1930s and 1940s they brought in atheistic socialism and unions. In the sixties it was peaceniks and beatniks spitting on our troops. 1970s abortion and progressive taxation. 1990s Clintonesque treason. 2010s Obama treason and untenable public debt.
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.