Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Tossing out Nazi comparisons is a favorite tactic of lentulusgracchus as a quick perusal of this thread will show. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I believe that a traitor is a traitor, and should be treated acordingly. In the North, Valdingham was a traitor to his home, etc. and could have been punished accordingly.
By the same standard, Unionist in the South, should have been and in many cases were as well.
OK, Copperhead then.
Say what???????
The Stars and Bars simply stood for a system of government which respected the rights of states and the people within them to decide their own local laws.
Two-thirds of the people anyway.
The War of Northern Aggression has been rewritten to promote Big City gangster mentality of love for one’s fellow man before love for God over small southern town hard work ethic treating a love for God first, followed by love for one’s fellow man.
You claim the confederacy freed the slaves before the Union and you accuse us of rewriting history? ROTFLMAO!!!
So, it is interesting that a “rebel” General, has a better reputation..... :)
Well...Abraham Lincoln has a better reputation nationwide than Jefferson Davis. Do you accept that as gospel?
Both sides sometimes had to play rough, but I feel that the Confederates shed much more blood of its own people than the Union did. Part of this was undoubtedly due to the fact the reb areas contained almost all the armed conflict, but I think that the nature of the CSA lent itself to the prominence of a class of stay at home parasites who enriched themselves while better men put their lives on the line in fair combat.
I didn't say that you think that. But, since you do appear to leave that question open. I am merely asking, if the South were to "rise again", would you condone slavery?
It seems that it would be simple enough to say, "No" or "Of course not."
No. Japan sent a hostile fleet to Pearl Harbor, just as Lincoln sent a hostile fleet to Fort Sumter. Both were Aggressive acts of war against a non-aggressive nation.
As I do not equate the South rising again WITH slavery, nor have I ever condoned slavery, you pose your 'simple' question in an unanswerable manner.
It's like asking someone "When did you stop beating your spouse?".
----
Answer ME this simple question.
Is the Constitution a 'living document', or not?
Nonsense. Lincoln was sending supplies to the U.S. garrison manning the U.S. fort. He made his intentions to land supplies only and not men or munitions in a letter to Governor Pickens. Yet the confederacy chose to bombard the fort into surrender. That's what started the war and led to the death and destruction that followed.
No, The Constitution is a Compact between Sovereign States who are already Independent. The Declaration of Independence is the underlying platform of our Sovereignty.
Everything issue cannot be boiled down to a simple yes or no. Can an individual renounce his citizenship? Yes, if done legally. I can't make it any simpler or plainer than that.
Then your answer is that Rights ARE mere "Legal Privileges" enjoyed at the convenience of the Government, and that Rights ARE NOT granted directly to Individuals by God.
If an Individual cannot renounce his Citizenship at any time and for any reason whatsoever without obeying some "legal" procedure established by the Government, then it is the Government -- and NOT the Individual -- who is Sovereign. Your point of view is precisely what the Fathers of our Country fought AGAINST. Your view is essentially Communist.
And since your point of view establishes a Legal Barrier between the Rights of Man and the only True Sovereign ("No King but Jesus" -- the battle-cry of the Revolution), your view is essentially Atheist.
If a Man, created in the Image of God, cannot separate himself from Government without asking the Government's "Legal" permission -- then there is no ultimate constraint on the Power of Government at all. An Individual must have the absolute freedom to renounce his Citizenship at any time, for any reason whatsoever, because Rights are directly granted by God to Men as Individuals. To attribute to the Government the authority to obstruct that Natural Right in any way, on the basis of "doing it Legally", is nothing but Atheistic Communism.
Doesn't matter. The USA does not have the right to maintain forts on the territory of Foreign Nations who don't want us there, and more than China has the right to maintain Forts on US territory.
If a Foreign Nation does not want us on their land, we can't "send supplies" or troops or anything else. Morally, we must evacuate immediately, and nothing else -- after all, it's their country; not ours.
Thank you, Sir. I' happy to see someone else understands this simple concept that the Founders wrote so copiously about:
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
By the way... I am not a Southron. -- OK, Copperhead then.
903 posted on 05/27/2007 9:33:21 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
Man... you're pretty good, Pelham. The "Copperhead" slur came out a mere 23 minutes after your prediction.
Not bad.
Good post... but please copy it to Non-Sequitur. I already know this stuff (I’m not being “snippy”, honest — he just needs to read it more than I do).
If I lived in the South, and the South were to "rise again", that is to say, become the Confederate States of America, I would certainly be against slavery being a part of that new nation.
That's what I was getting at. You seem to have a difficult time answering the original question. But, I will take it from your last answer, that under the above circumstances, that you would also be against slavery. Please correct me if I got that wrong.
As to your question, "Is the Constitution a 'living document', or not?"
I say, "no" because those who use the terminology that it is a "living" document, are too often the people trying to corrupt its original intent.
Other than trying to position me into defending an institution that I never said I agreed with in the first place, you mean?
Why should I have to clarify something that I never even said?
----
I say, "no" because those who use the terminology that it is a "living" document, are too often the people trying to corrupt its original intent.
Exactly. The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral, 'living' one.So, if in the 'original intent', slaves were not people, but property, why is the South so demonized for defending the Constitution?
More importantly, why is the North so idolized for breaking it?
Then why CAN'T the Unionists understand that it was ALSO a Moral Abomination for the Federal Government to compel, by blockade and invasion, the Confederate States to suffer subjection under a Government from which THEY wished to Secede?
It's clear to me, as an Iowa Yankee, that BOTH sides were in the wrong in many, many ways. But two Wrongs don't make a Right -- and I just don't see any logical consistency in the Unionist argument.
It would have cost Lincoln's Federal Government $3 billion dollars, and ZERO lives lost, to simply BUY UP all Southern Slaves at $1,000 a head and say, "Congratulations! You're Free!" Instead, Lincoln decided to spend TWICE that much money, and 600,000 American Lives lost, on a War of Federal Aggression to Collect Federal Tariffs (he made clear in his First Inaugural that he didn't care about Slavery; he just wanted to Collect Federal Tariffs from the South). Call me a "Copperhead" if you want -- but I think "let's kill off 600,000 Americans in order to collect Federal Taxes" is just about as Un-Righteous a basis for War as I can possibly imagine.
So does that mean that Castro can demand we leave Cuba, and if we refuse he can bombard Guantanamo Bay into surrender and you would support him?
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.