Posted on 03/05/2008 6:38:02 PM PST by Rebeleye
Does the Confederate battle flag represent heritage or hatred? The answer is yes. It represents a heritage that included hatred.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.mywebpal.com ...
fwiw, don't expect to get FACTS from N-S on any subject. his "stock in trade" (as The DAMNyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA) is : evasions, deceit, 1/2-truths,gossip,opinion passed off as facts, nonsense/bilge & other "diversions from the truth".
fwiw, you'll also never get him to admit that anything he is "selling" is worth-LESS and/or NONSENSE.
he & hillery ROTTEN klintoon have a LOT in common in that regard.
free dixie,sw
Go for it, dude. If the moderators are going to start banning people for responding to posts, they may as well just shut down FR altogether.
Free Sequitur!
Want to look again?
Likewise swattie, I double-dog dare ya.
You remind me of the story of “old Shep”.
There once was a boy who had a big ol dog named Shep. Shep was a a nondescript mutt of indistinct parentage, breed and dispossession (of course he loved his Boy, so they made a good team).
One day the dog and his Boy were walking down the street when Shep spied a fine looking poodle and rushed over to make friendly with her. Now the poodle’s master didn’t take at all kindly to having her carefully coiffed pet taken by any old cur, so she started to swat at ol Shep in a futile effort to run off the beast.
Failing at that, she cried to the Boy, “Boy, can’t you do anything to stop this?!” The Boy, who had been watching with amusement thought about it for a moment, went over to Shep, lifted his tail, and inserted his index finger into Shep’s bum.
Shep immediately let out a yelp, disengaged himself, and ran off.
The lady regained her composure and asked the lad, “Boy, how did you know to do that?”
The Boy looked at her and replied, “Shucks ma’am, everybody knows that ol Shep likes to dish it out, but he just can’t take it”
The point of the whole exercise has been astoundingly easy: treat me with respect and you’ll get it in return. Dis me and you’ll get it in spades. I can’t help it if you can’t take it.
You’ve fallen into a careless and sloppy habit of slandering people and that’s probably because you’ve been allowed to get away with it. There’s nothing I can do (or have any inclination to try to do), but I can call you on it, and will.
You would have been well-served to follow through on Highball’s advice - don’t post to, or about me, and your troubles all go away. Playing that cloying game of “Tell rockrr that he’s a poo-poo-head” ain’t gonna cut it.
Sprout some nads, get a life, and grow up swattie...
“And I’m not sure what it is that trumped ‘no taxation without representation’.”
Easy. Lincoln’s stated goals sounded the death knell of the Republic. The Constitution did not call for the national government to be pre-eminent and all-powerful. The Constitution set forth the parameters for an equal partnership between the individual states and the United States (i.e., the national government). In some respects, the Constitution established that the national government was subordinate to the states. Lincoln very avidly supported the idea that the states should be subordinate to the national government. He got his wish, and we’ve suffered ever since. Can you honestly believe that the bloated, incompetent, oppressive national government that we have today bears anything even remotely close to what the Founding Fathers intended and created? Lincoln set the stage for what we have today (and FDR and LBJ expanded on it).
Speaking of the colonies, do you realize the colonials (i.e., British subjects) had far more freedoms than what we have today? The British government in 1775 (I say 1775 because that was when the revolution really began in earnest) was nowhere near as oppressive as our national government today. Maybe it was due to logistics, as Britain was in those days so far away (no modern means of travel), though Britain had its bureaucrats and politicians and military throughout the colonies.
But, the national government is safe, mainly due to the fact the American people (as a generalization) not only have become complacent, and complicit, but they lack the will to do anything serious about their coming servitude. We are ceasing to be citizens, and are becoming subjects. Unfortunately, there is a very good chance a hardcore marxist will be elected president of the United States in November.
Don’t misunderstand me. I love my country, and I fought for her and would gladly do so again. But my country is NOT the government! Bill Clinton said there was no distinction between the country and its government, but that was spoken like the true totalitarian socialist he was and is. There is a huge difference between one’s country and one’s government. My America is the Constitution and the dream of liberty it established. When I was in the Air Force during Vietnam the oath I took was to the Constitution, not to the Nixon Administration, or to Congress, or to any government agency. In my oath I swore to defend the Constitution and obey and follow the lawful orders of my superiors, and that went all the way to the top, and Nixon was my CIC. But my allegiance was not to Nixon. My allegiance was to my country and its Constitution. It still is.
What stated goal was that? Quote please.
Then why didn't the rest of the country threaten to leave I wonder?
We don't know that. As Shelby Foote said, the American Genius was the art of compromise, and this is where both sides failed at this point in history
We do, actually. Look at the fate of the Crittenden Compromise and the Washington Peace Conference. Look at the more outrageous proposals floated by Toombs and Davis and Douglas and Hindman. The first two were compromises that either allowed the expansion of slavery and none went anywhere. Two in the second set were proposals that either allowed the expansion or denied it. They, too, went nowhere though the Corwin amendment most closely resembled Sewards. The Davis, Toombs, and Hindman proposals were surrenders, and never had a chance. In the end none were acceptable to both sides.
Just like the Corwin Amendentment most likely would have.
But the Corwin amendment allowed the government to limit slavery to where it currently existed, and to outlaw its spread to the territories. The confederate constitution guaranteed that slavery would never be limited and that every bit of territory the confederacy acquired would be slave territory. That's the difference between the two, and the difference that the South would not accept.
“There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally.”
This was untested at the time. States power wasn’t so limited, and under the 10th amendment, federal power was. The argument was settled fairly clearly though.
But to go back and say that states needed a specifically enumerated “right” in the Constitution to secede is sort of ridiculous.
“So since their acts were illegal, that made them a rebellion.”
A matter of perspective, and perhaps a distinction without a difference. History calls it “Civil War” southerners proudly called themselves (and some still do) “rebels”. I presume that term of endearment has something to do with “rebellion”.
If you are arguing that southern heritage is somehow diminished by referring to the Civil War as a rebellion then you’d be wrong - but I’m not sure you are. In fact, I’m not sure why anyone on either side of the Mason-Dixon line should care about the Civil War being also called a “rebellion”.
My only regret about the Civil War outcome is the gradual loss of the 10th Amendment - which has allowed the government to grow unchecked ever since the Civil War. I suspect it will take something every bit as traumatic as the Civil War to eventually restore the 10th amendment to it’s original intent, if it were to ever happen at all.
Untested, but not unconsidered. Many of the leaders prior to the rebellion believed that secession in any form was not allowed. Madison himself denied that unilateral secession was permitted, but left open the idea of secession with the consent of the states.
A matter of perspective, and perhaps a distinction without a difference. History calls it “Civil War” southerners proudly called themselves (and some still do) “rebels”. I presume that term of endearment has something to do with “rebellion”.
Until early in the 20th century the offical name for the conflict so far as the military was concerned was "War of the Rebellion". I confess to being a traditionalist.
If you are arguing that southern heritage is somehow diminished by referring to the Civil War as a rebellion then you’d be wrong - but I’m not sure you are. In fact, I’m not sure why anyone on either side of the Mason-Dixon line should care about the Civil War being also called a “rebellion”.
I am not trying to diminish Southern heritage in any way, shape, or form. Unfortunately for many people around here, supporting their Southern heritage requires lying about my Northern heritage. That's what I try and correct.
Beyond its historical accuracy and greater precision, this term has an elegance of expression exceeding that of "Civil War".
On the other hand, "War of Northern Aggression" is not only historically misleading but it has an abrasive ugliness of style. There is also an assumption in the use of this term that "northern aggression" was bad. It was only bad in the same sense that American aggression against Hitler was.
Hooray for northern aggression!
Lest you yankees get too far ahead of yourselves demeaning the South, I call out your obvious jealousy for all things southern as indicated by the “Hitler” reference when discussing the South and the Civil War.
Putz.
“I am not trying to diminish Southern heritage in any way, shape, or form. Unfortunately for many people around here, supporting their Southern heritage requires lying about my Northern heritage. That’s what I try and correct.”
You are correcting nothing. The Civil War is still the Civil War, and you are just stirring the pot. That’s OK, we like it better here in the South, as you obviously do as well. Why do you think that is?
In no way do I equate the people as property slave regime known as the "Confederate States of America" with the mad genocidal rule of German Nazism. Not quite.
And it's not jealousy, it's contempt. The CSA is one of the best buffoon acts in the pageant of human history.
I try to.
That’s OK, we like it better here in the South, as you obviously do as well. Why do you think that is?
Why do you think I like it better in the South? I've no desire to live there, don't vacation there, and no plans on moving there. I was born and raised in Illinois and currently live in Kansas and I expect that I'll remain here for the rest of my life.
And let me hasten to add that I spent just about all my active duty Navy career, almost 9 years, stationed in the South so it's not like I've never been there. I don't have any bad memories of my time down there, the people I met were nice enough, the place I was stationed at was nice enough as well. But for all that I don't have any desire to return there to live or work. Or anything else.
Why do you like it better in the South? I imagine it's because it's home to you. Why do I have no desire to move there? Because it isn't home to me, and never could be.
Anything else you want to know?
Uh, no. I quoted it. And you have the effrontery to tell me I "breezed right by" it?
Nice herring, btw -- what color was it before you painted it?
The Palmerston government wouldn't recognize the confederacy .....
But they almost went to war over the Trent affair.
They said they wouldn't recognize the Confederacy, like we said we wouldn't recognize Soviet Russia. And we didn't, for a long time.
It'll have to remain a matter of historical conjecture, whether your statement of Palmerston's determination is valid. A Confederate victory at Gettysburg, or a series of them -- Meade would have been expected to wreck his army, to keep the Confederates off Philadelphia -- might have clarified Lord Palmerston's view of the practical side of things. The British are amazingly dry that way.
Invoke Godwin's Law. Game over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Remember to thank him for playing.
Hello, pouch private. Leading with your chin again?
“And it’s not jealousy, it’s contempt.”
Last time I checked the South was part of America. You are contemptuous of things that are part of you and your history.
“The CSA is one of the best buffoon acts in the pageant of human history.”
Lee, as head of the buffoon army is one of the greatest of Americans. Soldiers the world over study his generalship to this day.
So if he was a buffoon, he was OUR buffoon (the big “our” that includes you and me and the rest of America)
So your bitterness and contempt certainly barely masks something - maybe you got a mint julep thrown in your face, who knows - but it really doesn’t matter. History has already decided that Lee, Jefferson Davis, Jackson were great Americans. You should aspire to be like them - dedicated to their state and honorable men.
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.