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.
What right does one sovereign nation have to seize the property of another sovereign nation? Isn't that a declaration of war?
The southern states backed out of the compact...a divorce, if you will.
A divorce requires the approval of both parties, and is done in a court of law. What the Southern states did was walk out.
Yet the confederacy still wanted to PAY for the forts...because they wanted the divorce to be peaceful
Yet they didn't. They walked out first. Seized what they wanted first. And then might of paid for things after the fact. How could the U.S. trust that they were sincere?
Take a read of era immediately prior to the civil war...and ask yourself which side was beating the war drums, and which side just wanted to be left the
I would say that the South had been threatening secession for some time by any means necessary. The war drums were theirs.
But his argument could just as easily apply to the confederacy. Do you really think the southern states signed up for this? A system in which they we held in a compact at the point of a gun? I don’t think so.
Obviously they didn't think they would be held at the point of a gun. They went and did it, walking away from debt and taking everything they could get their hands on. There was no gun pointed at them until they started their war. Then they got more guns than they expected.
Neither does this guy...
Then there's this guy:
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison
Granted, SCOTUS’s led by demorat judges have been using those amendments to mean just about anything, but they have done that with just about every amendment. Also, it was not until after the 1940’s were they so misused by judges appointed by demorat Roosevelt.
You picked one waypoint along the road to industrialization...but not the end state. Cotton is now picked by machines and my original point is valid.
Never the less, the population of slaves was growing, and the demorats wanted to expand slavery. All you have to do is look at the legislation demorats passed during the antebellum period.
First of all, they fired on Fort Sumter in 1861...not 1860.
Yeppers, you got me on this one; it was 1861. I misstated that fact. Correction noted. Hope you can amit your mistakes.
And it wasn’t in January, it was in April. And it wasn’t before Lincoln took office - it occurred a month after he took office. So please revise your history lesson.
It is you who has suffered revisionists’ history here. South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860. The initial shots by these secession demorats were fired on January 9, 1861. On that day, democrat slavers fired these first shots on Fort Sumter, months before Lincoln even took office and could do anything to avoid war.
Now as to why. By April, South Carolina had been separated from the Union for 4 months. It would be like having a Mexican army base in Dallas, today. The south and north negotiated the abandonment of many federal forts in that 4 month period. But there was no successful negotiation with Sumter.
So you agree the demorat slavers of the South fired first?
Even so, the fort was still under demorat control under Demorat President James Buchanan until Lincoln took office in March. Frankly, it was demorats own doing that led to the war. They had the majority – Executive, House and Judiciary - but their own schisms split “white free labor” demorats of the North from slaver demorats in the South.
Northern demorats saw slavery as depressing the income of free whites in the North. The demorat controlled SCOTUS made slavery a national institution and the demorat slavers loved it (so much for states’ rights). The demorat Fugitive Slave Act was also a federal law and the demorat slaver sates cleaved to it (again, so much for states’ rights).
Demorat Stephen A. Douglas was instrumental in splitting the Demorat Party and bringing about the war by introducing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which led to “Bleeding Kansas”. These are just the highlights of some demorat slaver legislation that led to the war; I can write pages of other demorat stupidity making them responsible for the war. Name the federal laws enacted that were authored by abolitionists and I can give you ten laws created to help demorats.
And the last straw...Lincoln made known his intention to re-supply the fort. Just imagine Mexico announcing a supply train was headed through Texas to supply their Dallas fort. South Carolina had decided to bow out of the compact of states, and was no longer part of the Union. The characterization of firing on Sumter as the aggressive catalyst of the war ignores the true situation. The aggressive act was maintaining an outpost on what was now foreign soil.
Even if you think secession is legal without the agreement of the rest of the states, and those that seceded had the right to the land that Fort Sumter was on; they should have made sure if they were going to fire on that fort that they’d be able to win a war. Even if they were shooting for a negotiated peace, they had no chance of winning a war and should have kept negotiating more than the 20 days they had from secession to first shot (or as you believe, between March and April) .
IOW, the civil war is much more complicated than the sound byte history books you have read.
“sound byte history books you have read?” What you have learned is demorat history indoctrination. They don’t want you to know the truth . They own the responsibility of the war, but they don’t want you to know their little secret. Just think where they would be if they had to own up to it and had to apologize for it!
Now I understand your point...you don’t like the historical switcheroo that has occurred with both slavery and the civil rights movement, when it comes to the democrats. But why on earth join the anti-flag chorus at this time. To me its practically obscene...politicians are standing on a soap box propped up with dead bodies when they preach on this issue. The flag has gradually been pulled from statehouse domes over the years, and that trend, born from legislative and referendum action is likely to continue...IOW the people are deciding to leave the flag in the history books.
But now the rabble want to erase history, and act like the flag never existed. That type of stuff seems to go hand in hand with totalitarian dictators, and I want no part of it.
I have always been against that flag because it represents those who flew it during the Civil War - demorat slavers. But I will grant you, and I'll admit (as in post 35) that the removal of the flag is symbolism over substance. I’m not for the flags entire removal from everything. You are correct, it is part of US history, much like how the US fought in other wars. It should be in museums and history books - but the history has to be correct – DEMORAT SLAVERS FLEW THE FLAG.
I will always fight against the false notion that Christian conservatives should be stuck with the history of this flag and I will do what I can to keep the history of it where it belongs. Abolitionists were the conservatives of their time, they stuck to what the Bible stated and kept it in context; the slaver Christians took the Bible out of context like liberal Christians of today.
No republican flew this flag when it was held in battle. I’m not saying you have stated this, but it does come out of college students. I’ve heard it, I sat with them.
I repeat, if we are going to do something with substance, we should ban the political Party that upheld slavery without apology.
It is the Demorat Party that has this heritage of hate. No Republican EVER held slaves - ONLY DEMORATS. The Demorat Party has NEVER apologized for slavery! If we are going to ban anything meaningful because of slavery - BAN THE DEMORAT PARTY !!!
Unfortunately, there are many here that will defend demorat history.
Read post 122 and learn something beyond you demorat indoctrination.
The first shots on Sumter weren in April, not January. You are confusing this with confederate shots fired on a supply ship attempting to reach Sumter.
And why wouldn’t it be legitimate to fire on a ship violating the confederacy’s sovereign territory? And of course this illustrates the problem with maintaining federal forts in confederate territory...how could Lincoln or anyone else expected anything other than armed conflict to be the ultimate outcome?
I’ll tell you a secret. Most of his cabinet and even the commander at Sumter understood this - and they begged Lincoln not to press for war. He ignored them.
We’re obviously never going to agree. But I refuse to believe the black and white history of the civil war that has become conventional wisdom. And party labels aside, the south acted in more of an originalist fashion than the north, hands down. I’m actually glad the union stayed together...and ours became a nation powerful enough to save the world from tyranny in the 20th century. But we never needed to have a war or even secession. The late 1850s marked the beginning of our robbing Peter to pay Paul, a watershed fork in the road in which our ancestors had to choose between the constitution or an ever bloating government. The urban centers chose the latter, and implememted tariffs that damaged the south’s export economy. Creeping big government reared its ugly head as it always does - taxes/tariffs and fees. The south wanted no part of it...and the government wrapped itself in a social issue, per usual, and the killing began. Imagine what type of nation we would now have, if originalists had won out and rescinded the new tariffs.
Because it wasn't confederate sovereign territory. It was part of the United States (or These United States if that makes you feel better) that just happened to be in a state of rebellion.
They only prevailed in the short term through the same "might makes right" that lost causers attempt to apply against the unionists.
I agree. It’s a dem flag of a dem slave masters rebellion and I’m tired of hearing about it.
:-)
I grew up in a Republican household.
You should stop digging before you have to learn Mandarin to ask for water.
Every one of your assumptions has proven wrong.
Different.
Good catch again, but it still proves my point that the secessionist demorat confederacy shot the first shots. Even the Citadel admits on their web site that, “Many scholars consider the firing on the Star of the West to be the first hostile shots of the Civil War even though the attack on Fort Sumter did not begin until April 12, 1861.” It does go on to state, “Because the Star of the West was not a United States Naval vessel, some scholars do not consider it to have been a military engagement,” but I agree (as I’m sure you will disagree) with the scholars that state what the cadets did was an act of war, and that they shot the first of the Civil War.
And why wouldn’t it be legitimate to fire on a ship violating the confederacy’s sovereign territory? And of course this illustrates the problem with maintaining federal forts in confederate territory...how could Lincoln or anyone else expected anything other than armed conflict to be the ultimate outcome?
Not that I agree with you, but let’s take your argument here and say that the first shots of the war began on April 12, 1861. Lincoln took office on March 4 of that year. Conclusion: The slave holding demorat secessionists gave Lincoln 39 whole days to negotiate a peaceful outcome. Wow, how generous of them! This only shows that it was the demorat slavers who were just itchen’ to go to war! It was pretty stupid of them too, as they knew they were outnumbered and outgunned. Well, they got what they wished for and they lost.
I’ll tell you a secret. Most of his cabinet and even the commander at Sumter understood this - and they begged Lincoln not to press for war. He ignored them.
Lincoln didn’t “press” for war. If he had, he would have fired on the demorats way before they did. He knew that the demorat slavers were so blinded by their lust to keep slavery alive that they would fire the first shots. He still tried to negotiate a peace even after they fired.
We’re obviously never going to agree. But I refuse to believe the black and white history of the civil war that has become conventional wisdom.
As to, “the black and white history of the civil war that has become conventional wisdom,” the “conventional wisdom” is what is being taught in government schools. I came to know and accept the truth after the indoctrination they give in government schools. I hope you come to know the truth and accept it as well.
And party labels aside, the south acted in more of an originalist fashion than the north, hands down.
I have to repeat myself again? The demorat slavers used the federal government for their advantage every chance they got. Like I stated before, the demorat controlled SCOTUS made slavery a national institution and the demorat slavers loved it (so much for states’ rights). The demorat Fugitive Slave Act was also a federal law and the demorat slaver sates cleaved to it (again, so much for states’ rights). These are just highlights of some demorat slaver legislation that led to the war. I can write pages of other demorat stupidity making them responsible for the war.
I’m actually glad the union stayed together...and ours became a nation powerful enough to save the world from tyranny in the 20th century. But we never needed to have a war or even secession. The late 1850s marked the beginning of our robbing Peter to pay Paul, a watershed fork in the road in which our ancestors had to choose between the constitution or an ever bloating government. The urban centers chose the latter, and implememted tariffs that damaged the south’s export economy. Creeping big government reared its ugly head as it always does - taxes/tariffs and fees. The south wanted no part of it...and the government wrapped itself in a social issue, per usual, and the killing began. Imagine what type of nation we would now have, if originalists had won out and rescinded the new tariffs.
Again, you give too much credit to the Demorat Party here. We can argue how they did it from 1864 on, but that is a debate for another time.
Before I go on, answer a couple of simple questions. These questions will answer whether it is worth continuing this debate with you.
1) Do you think that the slaves held by demorats had a natural right of rebellion to rise up against their master?
2) Do you think Emancipation was the taking away of freedom?
I leave here with a couple of other things to think about as well.
By defending Demorat slavers’ history, it is a defense of Demorat slavers of today.
Always remind Democrats of their history, a history of slavery then and now!
Long live the Christian Conservative South!
You teach grammar?
No doubt. How different? Would blacks still be slaves?
ping
I see you are outnumbered and surrounded, again, but still giving back as good as you take — and more like the airborne at Bastone than Anderson at Sumter.
Still, pro-Confederate aggressor forces coming on strong, with heavy battalions of thick propaganda books, locked, loaded & arguing that up is down, left is right, in is out and so much more.
And where are our reinforcements?
Well for one, I’m on the road again, no time for fun, will end the day near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and coincidentally, not so far from Jefferson Davis’ birth place.
So, maybe tomorrow, if you haven’t already finished these guys by then... ;-)
We got 'em right where we want 'em.
Yes indeed, a tip of the hat to celmak for a worthy effort.
Just like so many others, I’ve been trying to make sense of these recent events. I do have an appreciation of the angst some of our southern FRiends are feeling, albeit for slightly different reasons. I do not personally identify with the CBF but I don’t begrudge anyone flying it should they choose to do so. Growing up I encountered the chip on the shoulder many southerners have toward outsiders but I’ve always shrugged it off and I never allowed myself to instill a knee-jerk “they’re all that way” attitude.
The silly side of all of this has been in the attempts by some of those to describe their affiliation to the symbol. More than a few have said that the CBF represents resistance to authority and that one made me laugh. I remember my younger sister obstinately drawing herself up and defiantly shouting, “You’re not the boss of me!” when any of us brothers attempted to restrain her from one of her more stupid antics. Come to think of it she still acts that way ;’)
I do have to admit that there’s some rebel in me too. I choose the Gadsden flag to show my opposition to authority.
The south went to war against their own compatriots and neighbors to defend institutionalized slavery. Confederate soldiers fought to support that cause whether they recognized it as such or not. There is no cognitive dissonance for me to say that I can revere the memory of those soldiers even though I oppose their actions. And there is no legitimacy to the assertion that any criticism of the actions of people 150 years ago equals “hatred” of their descendants today. That’s just stupid.
Celmak is right - the CBF represents a political movement instigated and perpetuated by democrats. The dhimmicrat party has effectively washed their hands (so to speak) of association to the symbol. Those who identify with the CBF sooner or later need to realize that public sentiment isn’t exactly running in their favor.
The two cultures of northerners and southerners came together in mutual defense against common enemies at the founding of our nation. Instead of obsessing on our differences we should be uniting in defense of our common interests.
Thanks for the encouragement! :-)
Ditto. :-)
Have a safe trip BroJoeK. Where are the reinforcements? Good question. I wonder that sometimes when I’m going toe to toe with these Johnny Reb wannabes but the cavalry usually shows up.
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.