Posted on 06/20/2020 2:51:52 PM PDT by Ennis85
Sorry to tell blacks this but slavery is a myth. There was no CSA either. It is a fairy tale used to stir up racial hatred for political purposes. Slavery is a lie.
If you say so.
Exactly. Repeat after me, THERE WAS NO SLAVERY.
Actually, his natural and normal condition was to be left alone at his home in Africa. This would have avoided unnecessary and unproductive speculation about the attributes of the various races of man.
Correct.
Since "students" do not study anything any more, let me suggest a refresher course in bolshevism.
What is going on is a re-enactment of the revolutionary praxis that occurred in Russia 110 years ago. The blacks are cannon fodder, the vanguard is same-old, same-old, and their chances of success are not inconsiderable.
Oh, and I omitted in my two previous posts, Rich Lowery is an idiot.
The left can’t beat the GOP right now so the best they can do is beat the copses of those they think represent them historically
If you say so.
Lol - CVA seeks to counter those who wish to rewrite history by rewriting history.
My opinion is that there are two types of Confederate Monuments.
The first of these are the statues of a Confederate Soldier that is inscribed “To Our Confederate Dead”. These are monuments to the thousands of husbands, fathers, sons, uncles, nephews and friends that went away to war and never came home. They lie close to the Chambersburg Pike in Pennsylvania, Shiloh Church in Tennessee, Chickamauga Creek in Georgia, or near a little Dunker Church in Maryland. Some have no resting place; their ashes strewn to the wind by fire in a Virginia Wilderness.
Monuments to the dead are as old as humanity. When they laid Paleolithic Neanderthal Thag in his grave, the stacked some rocks on to, so they would always remember where Thag was. People have done that since then. We should protect these monuments to the dead. Some think they may no longer belong in front of the Surry County Court House or in the middle of a street of downtown Portsmouth. There are cemeteries nearby with graves of Confederate soldiers. Why not move the statues there? I think it fitting the stone sentry guards over his comrades in arms for eternity.
The second type of monument is to the Confederacy. These I do not particularly care what happens to. The statue of Jefferson Davis in a public square in New Orleans was not put there because Davis was from New Orleans or Louisiana. It was not erected there because Davis was an outstand Secretary of War or a Mississippi Senator. It is there because he was the President of the Confederacy. Stone Mountain in Georgia is another example of a monument to the Confederacy. Davis, Lee and Jackson were not from Georgia, nor did they ever serve there in any significant capacity. They are the face of the Confederacy and that is why that monument was carved. It resides on private land, and Georgia law should determine its continued existence. Make no mistake. it is there to memorialize the concept of the Confederacy. If it goes, I will not mourn its loss.
How does the outcome of a war decide whether it’s a rebellion or Independence? That’s pretty simple. If you don’t win, you don’t gain Independence.
As regards the definition of Rebellion, we’re rapidly getting into dictionary territory here:
Merriam-Webster defines “rebellion” as:
1: Opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or
resistance to an established government
2b: an instance of such defiance or resistance
I think we can safely say that the Civil War meets the definition of this, especially 2a, in terms of the whole “unsuccessful” thing. Doesn’t say anything about “an effort to take control of an existing government”. By the way, by your definition the American War of Independence was not a rebellion either. Don’t remember any plans to take control of Parliament.
Lincoln also defined it as a rebellion, and he was a much more accomplished wordsmith than I am. I’m gonna go with Merriam-Webster and Lincoln on this.
I’m going to wordsmith your last paragraph a little bit. You say “That’s the right we asserted in declaring Independence from the British Union”. I’m going to add the word SUCCESSFULLY right before the word asserted. To gain our independence we needed to win the fight. Otherwise it’s a footnote in history, like the Chilembwe uprising.
We did win the fight against the British, we get to name the conflict as the American War of Independence. The South lost, they don’t get to name the war. It’s the Civil War, which was a rebellion.
We did win the fight against the British, we get to name the the conflict as the American War of Independence. The South lost, they don’t get to name the War. It’s the Civil War, which was a rebellion.
Has to do with the nature of the differing legal systems. The British system relies on this concept called "Divine Right of Kings", where the American system is founded on "Natural Law."
With no framework allowed for Independence in the British system, rejecting your allegiance is "Rebellion".
With "natural law" as the foundation of the US system, Independence is a right of all people granted by God.
Leaving the British system is rebellion. Leaving the American system is asserting a right recognized in our own founding document.
See the difference?
Lincoln also defined it as a rebellion, and he was a much more accomplished wordsmith than I am.
Of course he did, because this was required to unlock constitutional power to stop it. If you've taken some time to get to know Lincoln, you will discover he was not only an accomplished wordsmith, but a consummate double talker. Lincoln was for people gaining independence from larger nations or empires, and he said so quite clearly in 1848 and again in 1852. He only changed his position when the independence being sought was from him.
While we're on the topic of how good Lincoln was as a double talker, consider the Gettysburg Address. "Four Score and Seven Years ago" refers to 1776, and he is speaking of the American War of independence. The core purpose was the secession of a bunch of slave owning states from a Union, yet he turned the event 180 degrees to justify a government preventing an Independence movement, with him in the role of King George III.
Talk about chutzpah!
We did win the fight against the British, we get to name the conflict as the American War of Independence.
Most people call it "Revolutionary War", but of course it wasn't a revolution. It is more precisely named "American War of Independence". The Civil War would more precisely be named "The War of Northern Invasion", because that's what happened.
Why must we disrespect the South in the face of rampaging, looting and pillaging ancestors of ex slaves?
Why are these criminals more respected than the great leaders of the South?
The confederate monuments are the heritage of mis guided blacks who worship the isols of Martin Luther King Jr.
Why must we put up with all the MLK crap that besets America?
Early rap tended to be fun and carefree, and if there was a political or social message, it tended to be positive. As late as 1986 Doug E Fresh recorded a pro-life song titled “Abortion”. Later songs like “F&@k Da Police” and “Stop Snitching” did more damage to the black community in the last thirty years than any amount of statues or police misconduct.
I had young kids in the house, and I saw real problems
with it.
That anti abortion song sounds good, but that wasn’t the
leaning of the things I heard.
I thought it would last a while and be gone. WRONG!
Trash...
I agree with the damage it has done to the Black mindset,
particularly regarding women. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!
I’m confused a little bit. Merriam-Webster defines a rebellion as
1: Opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or
resistance to an established government
2b: an instance of such defiance or resistance
Are you saying that the American Civil War does not meet this definition?
It’s nice when you can make up your own definitions of words (I kind of like using the definitions that most people understand, like Merriam-Websters). You stated that a rebellion “a rebellion is an effort to take control of an existing government”. Then later you stated that “leaving the British system is rebellion”. Yet, we didn’t try to take control of an existing government (we never tried to take over Parliament). So, how can we have been in rebellion? I’m so confused, but I’m certain that you will help allay my confusion. Also please explain to me what Daniel Shay was doing in 1876, since it clearly was not a rebellion. Same for James McFarlane in the Whiskey Rebellion – oops, obviously the wrong name, since it clearly was not a rebellion by your somewhat unique definition.
By the way, don’t give me the Divine Right of Kings hoo-hah. It was a dead letter by at least 1688 and the Glorious Revolution, if not sooner. England was a Parliamentary democracy by the 1770s, and the Prime Minister was the real guy in charge. George III was merely a titular head of state, and had no real power.
I do understand the Divine Right of Kings. It holds that a king derives their authority from God and could not be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority. While that might have been true at one time, I think the Barons at Runnymede might have disagreed and by 1688, when the English Parliament invited William of Orange and Mary II to be rulers, it was pretty much over. George III did not rule by virtue of the Divine Right of Kings. In fact, he did not rule in any case. Parliament ruled and the guy in charge was actually William Pitt, the Prime Minister.
You could call it the War of Northern Aggression. That would even be technically correct, if you ignore all of the events leading up to the first Union attack at Manassas. You could call it the War of Southern Secession, the War of Southern rebellion or, for simplicities sake, how about the American Civil War. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
“It isn’t. Rebellion is rebellion.”
Just ask George III.
King George III issued his Proclamation on 23 August 1775, in response to the arrival of William Penn in England, carrying Congress’s petition for independence. This action officially declared the colonies to be in a state of rebellion.
Throughout the summer of 1775, King George III urges his ministers to declare the American colonies to be in a state of rebellion. An official statement will allow the military to pursue more aggressive measures against the colonists, and allow the king to punish English supporters of the American cause. On 13 August 1775, William Penn arrives in Bristol, England carrying Congress’s petition to the king. George III initially refuses to see Penn or receive the petition. Instead, he issues A Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition on 23 August 1775. News of these developments reaches Congress in the fall, encouraging delegates—and eventually all colonists—to rethink their allegiance to the king:
http://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=818&img_step=1&pid=2&mode=transcript#page1
Seeking independence is merely exercising a right in this country. It is not "rebellion", precisely because our system allows for it.
Your thinking is along the lines of suggesting "protesting" is "rebellion." You see, our system allows for "protesting", but the British system did not. To the British, "protesting" the King was in fact "rebellion."
You aren't having a problem understanding this concept. You simply refuse to do so because you want to justify what happened.
In the United States, leaving is a right. It is therefore not "rebellion."
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.