One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
A little support for the south
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Apr 21, 2017 10:14:13   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Some of you southern guys and gals may think it strange but I see the civil war as an event which should be remembered.

For the death of all. Weather they wore blue or gray.

The memorabilia of the war should be seen as memories of the nation, not symbols of current movements..

Flags, buildings and battlefields are all part of you countries amazing past.

We should maintain and keep them all..



Reply
Apr 21, 2017 15:56:21   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
permafrost wrote:
Some of you southern guys and gals may think it strange but I see the civil war as an event which should be remembered.

For the death of all. Weather they wore blue or gray.

The memorabilia of the war should be seen as memories of the nation, not symbols of current movements..

Flags, buildings and battlefields are all part of you countries amazing past.

We should maintain and keep them all..


Yea, that's too bad that we have to consider confederates veterans, traitors seems more accurate.

Reply
Apr 21, 2017 16:04:26   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
Yea, that's too bad that we have to consider confederates veterans, traitors seems more accurate.




Dummy boy,

While I sorta agree with you, the truth is that most of those fighting, both blue and gray were only fighting to keep their home and family, nothing much more..

I think it is worst to still have hard feelings about a war over 150 years old..

And I should add, so many stories, both real and fiction about the war. It is truly fascinating..

Even a company of Sioux Indians from Minnesota were sent to fight in the war..

Reply
 
 
Apr 22, 2017 06:21:19   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
Yea, that's too bad that we have to consider confederates veterans, traitors seems more accurate.


Why would you consider them traitors, genius? There was no law against secession until 1869. One out of every four Southern males of military age was killed or wounded in the war. That's an awful lot of traitors. Both sides had a draft, however, a much lower percentage of Southern soldiers were draftees. What about the Union troops who had to be forced to fight? Are they traitors, too?
Peckerhead.

Reply
Apr 22, 2017 23:06:36   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
permafrost wrote:
Some of you southern guys and gals may think it strange but I see the civil war as an event which should be remembered.
For the death of all. Weather they wore blue or gray.
The memorabilia of the war should be seen as memories of the nation, not symbols of current movements..
Flags, buildings and battlefields are all part of you countries amazing past.
We should maintain and keep them all..

There was nothing 'civil' about that awful war. The war was between two different unions, one the United States of America, the other the Confederate States of America. The Confederate States had seceded from the Union before forming their own separate and distinct Confederacy. They had written and ratified their own Constitution and seated their elected Representatives first in Montgomery, Alabama, then in Richmond, Virginia. Ex-US Senator Jefferson Davis was elected as their President. No, this was not a 'civil war'. This was an invasion with intent to conquer. The Confederate States did not 'rejoin' the union, they were first conquered, then subjugated.

Next up: Slavery. Go ahead, tell me how that War of Northern Aggression was fought over the institution of slavery. That's another canard, the world knows it but nobody says it.

By the way, the Confederate States of America even had their own national flag:

After the red stripe was added, it was known as the 'Blood-Stained Banner'.
After the red stripe was added, it was known as th...

Reply
Apr 23, 2017 12:32:17   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
There was nothing 'civil' about that awful war. The war was between two different unions, one the United States of America, the other the Confederate States of America. The Confederate States had seceded from the Union before forming their own separate and distinct Confederacy. They had written and ratified their own Constitution and seated their elected Representatives first in Montgomery, Alabama, then in Richmond, Virginia. Ex-US Senator Jefferson Davis was elected as their President. No, this was not a 'civil war'. This was an invasion with intent to conquer. The Confederate States did not 'rejoin' the union, they were first conquered, then subjugated.

Next up: Slavery. Go ahead, tell me how that War of Northern Aggression was fought over the institution of slavery. That's another canard, the world knows it but nobody says it.

By the way, the Confederate States of America even had their own national flag:
There was nothing 'civil' about that awful war. T... (show quote)




Are you still fighting the war??

It is history, join the 21st century...

Reply
Apr 23, 2017 13:54:52   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
Loki wrote:
Why would you consider them traitors, genius? There was no law against secession until 1869. One out of every four Southern males of military age was killed or wounded in the war. That's an awful lot of traitors. Both sides had a draft, however, a much lower percentage of Southern soldiers were draftees. What about the Union troops who had to be forced to fight? Are they traitors, too?
Peckerhead.


...so they're traitors...it's after 1869.

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2017 17:30:47   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
...so they're traitors...it's after 1869.


The war ended in 1865, dipshit. People are not criminals for something that was made illegal after the fact. For your information, The Constitution does not forbid secession. It still does not. Three of the original 13 states, New York, Rhode Island, and VIRGINIA explicitly reserved the right to secede as a condition of their ratification of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and the people.
So tell, me, moron, how was secession "treasonous?" I think your disagreeing with the Constitution is treason, traitor.

Reply
Apr 23, 2017 19:00:07   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
permafrost wrote:
Are you still fighting the war??

It is history, join the 21st century...


Fine. Then quit believing the lies. Every word of what I wrote is true. It makes me sick every time I hear about how righteous and moral the Union was in that bloody war. They were not, and their President was just as sick.

Reply
Apr 23, 2017 19:02:55   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
Loki wrote:
There was no law against secession until 1869.


What 1869 law? This is very new to me.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 07:04:41   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
What 1869 law? This is very new to me.



http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/was-the-secession-of-the-confederate-states-illegal


http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023ee6-5191-5fd7-85a8-b533bfab9c2e.html

http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Secession.htm

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2017 08:44:14   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
Thanks, Buddy! I cherry-picked a few quotes that I think sum it all up quite nicely:
Loki wrote:
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/was-the-secession-of-the-confederate-states-illegal

How's this for some tortured logic?
"The Constitution defines the procedure for admitting new states. It defines no such procedure for secession, which if it were legal would require various actions by the Federal government, such as removing Senators and Representatives. Since the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, one could argue that it has no such authority, and therefore states cannot legally secede." In other words, States are not legally empowered to secede because Congress is not constitutionally empowered to allow it. Now that's what the term 'legislating from the bench' is all about.

Loki wrote:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023ee6-5191-5fd7-85a8-b533bfab9c2e.html

"Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?" That really reaches into the heart of the whole matter, doesn't it? The Southern States preferred to simply walk away and live in peace. The Union States preferred to impose their vision on the Confederacy by force of arms. "The South lost, so no it wasn't legal." Just that simple.

Loki wrote:
http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Secession.htm

"By insisting that the former Confederate States surrender their right to secede, the United States government had implicitly admitted that those states originally had the right. How could they surrender a right, unless they had it in the first place?" The coercion applied was that Union troops would remain in occupation of the Southern States until such time as the Southern States relinquished their right to secession that they never had in the first place. Right.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 08:51:10   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
permafrost wrote:
Some of you southern guys and gals may think it strange but I see the civil war as an event which should be remembered.

For the death of all. Weather they wore blue or gray.

The memorabilia of the war should be seen as memories of the nation, not symbols of current movements..

Flags, buildings and battlefields are all part of you countries amazing past.

We should maintain and keep them all..


I completely agree with you!! It is history of our country and removing the flag or its artifacts or statues etc will not remove what it was....Like it or not..I happen to like it and also do not think it should be struck from our history books or not taught in school...A tradegy it is!!

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 09:01:04   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
Loki wrote:
The war ended in 1865, dipshit. People are not criminals for something that was made illegal after the fact. For your information, The Constitution does not forbid secession. It still does not. Three of the original 13 states, New York, Rhode Island, and VIRGINIA explicitly reserved the right to secede as a condition of their ratification of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and the people.
So tell, me, moron, how was secession "treasonous?" I think your disagreeing with the Constitution is treason, traitor.
The war ended in 1865, dipshit. People are not cri... (show quote)


They're all traitors, moron. The north won, anyone that participated as confederate soldier is a traitor: period.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 09:39:08   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
They're all traitors, moron. The north won, anyone that participated as confederate soldier is a traitor: period.


Would that be because the Union overran and subjugated the Confederacy? After all, the victor writes the history, right? That's why the War of Union Aggression was all about 'slavery', right? Because talking about any of the grievances cited by the seceding States would detract from that egregious lie, wouldn't it? Let's take a little trip down (real) Memory Lane:

From Georgia:
"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."

From The Great State of Texas:
"By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration."

There's more, but I think that about covers it.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.