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 ...
No. Not in the South.
A Copperhead was someone who lived in the North and supported the Southern rebellion. Why are you taking that as a slur?
Don't you have that backwards?
There is very good evidence that some of the Unionist and Abolitionist in Texas poisoned wells, and did some acts of sabotage.
If that is the case, then hanging them would have been justified.
nice posts...well done
Does everything you touch turn crazy?
Just because I don't believe in the divine right of state governments, doesn't mean I want a global supergovernment.
Federalism and the United States are good enough for me.
I don't know why you find them so lacking.
Genetic? You mean you are a racist?
Maybe you've noticed that that part of Britain has been the most Conservative section of the country in the 20th century.
Sorry, no. Bobby Lee must ever defer that title to George Washington.
Is a man a traitor who remains loyal to his first cause when those around him switch theirs? Is he a traitor to his honor, or to the herd?
Say it again, the northerners held onto their slaves longer than the southerners.
Gen Lee freed his slaves which his family had inherited in 1862. Gen Sherman didn’t free his slaves which he purchased until after the Civil War, remarking that “Good help was so hard to find”.
The Union declared the emancipation of slaves from the south, but didn’t mandate the freedom of slaves in the north.
Who taught you history? Some Yankee liberal who insists all southerners were uneducated bigots? Sorry, that’s the liberal socialist line.
No, I do not.
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?
A) The Civil War does not occupy a place of parallel significance in Northern culture/mythology/history as it does in the South.
B)The end of slavery and the bloodshed it entailed is seen as a conflict or struggle for America to live up to its best potential in a way that has nothing to do with the Constitution.
LOL! No, it has everything to do with the Constitution. The Federal government used the moral issue of slavery to alter a legal document. Once altered, the document became inverted, and the original intent that the States relinquished only specific and limited powers to the newly created federal government was destroyed, as the Founders never intended the federal government to have direct interaction over any of the People.(The exception, of course, being those People inside the federal enclave.)
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the suprerme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
-----
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 35, James Madison
Once unleashed, the power created to operate in ONLY certain areas began to operate in ALL areas, and became supreme over the very entities that created it....which is contrary to the original intent.
Do you believe the Constitution is a 'living document'?
Read my quote more carefully. I wrote “is seen” to indicate a general perception and not a legal reading of history. You can argue that “perception” of history is flawed and the only true view of history is via through documentation. However, I would argue that both readings are correct and that America’s “mythology” (our image of ourselves and our history) is also important.
Considering how badly Davis trashed his own constitution then it's very hypocritical for you to condemn Lincoln. But then again hypocrisy is a very Southron trait.
But then again hypocrisy is a very Southron trait.
Are you serious? Please explain.
Then let me say it again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Gen Lee freed his slaves which his family had inherited in 1862. Gen Sherman didn’t free his slaves which he purchased until after the Civil War, remarking that “Good help was so hard to find”.
And interesting tale with but one problem. William Sherman never owned a single slave in his life.
The Union declared the emancipation of slaves from the south, but didn’t mandate the freedom of slaves in the north.
Constitutionally they couldn't. But the constitutionality of an act has never been big on the Southron list of priorities.
Who taught you history? Some Yankee liberal who insists all southerners were uneducated bigots? Sorry, that’s the liberal socialist line.
Considering the nonsense you've been spouting it's evident that nobody has been able to teach you anything about history, much less the truth of it.
Yes I am.
Please explain.
I'm talking about how the Southron supporter will spend hours lambasting Lincoln and the Union for actions that Davis and the confederacy also did. Mama condemns Lincoln for his alleged Constitutional infractions but ignores the actions of Davis. People will complain about prisoners held in the North without trial but ignore the same situation in the confederacy. They will go to great lengths to try and paint Lincoln as a racist but ignore worse sentiments in their own leaders. Hypocrisy thy name is Southron Supporter.
The Civil War was an ugly piece of business and neither side can claim clean hands. The only question to ask is: was it worth it? I believe it was worth it.
Yes, and the document is the Constitution.
-----
However, I would argue that both readings are correct
Honestly, I don't see how one could correctly use feelings to interpret a plainly written word.
------
and that America’s “mythology” (our image of ourselves and our history) is also important.
While our image of ourselves and our history is important, an 'image' based on falsehood is nothing but a lie.
-----
Do you believe the Constitution is a 'living document'?
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.