What does the confederate flag mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Had Buffalo Trace last night.

-Bourbon Supremacist

 

[FUBAR]

Not enough, but it was politically better to handle it the way it was handled. Civil wars are tough after they are over and the country tries to move on. They handled it then probably as best as they could. I don't understand the point of the question though.

The point? To show that nobody was convicted of treason at the time. You know I knew the answer.

Right - President Johnson provided amnesty and pardons.

There weren't a whole lot of options for him. They were never going to send anyone to trial. Davis had already sat in prison for two years without so much as a date.

Sure, my only point here is that the lack of convictions doesn't always mean they didn't commit a crime.

Yesterday the city council for New Orleans voted to take down (I believe) statues of Jeff Davis (and change his street name), Robert E. Lee, PGT Beauregard, and the Liberty Monument. I don't know if this will happen, there is a lot of resistance, it will be extremely costly and there are other laws and contracts at stake, but anyway that much did happen.

I live less than a mile from Lee Highway in Alabama, but haven't heard it referred to as such in the few weeks we've been here. When I have mentioned the name, the other people usually just ignore it and use the other name - Highway 72. Haven't heard if the name will change, but it wouldn't surprise me much.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Im outraged they took the duke boys off the air. Silly really

 

[msommer]

Places I've been:

All over California, my home state, and there's an awful lot to see here: San Francisco, Yosemite, Napa, Big Sur, Monterey, the Redwoods, etc.

Oregon- several times

Hawaii- Several times

Washington (state)

western Canada

Nevada (of course, all the time)

Arizona

New Mexico

Colorado

the Mexican Riviera- Mazatlan, Acapulco, Puerto Vallarte, etc.

Columbia

Costa Rica

England

Scotland

New York City

Rochester NY

Buffalo

Niagara

Boston

Detroit

Orlando

Ft Lauderdale

That's about it.

You need to get out more

 

[Doug B]

There's not an infinite amount of time and attention to pay to issues. I don't understand how not paying attention to an issue until an event draws your attention to it is some sort of failing.

I'd say the event didn't draw the attention to the Confederate-monument issue organically. Many members of the media fashioned the connection out of whole cloth.

I'm not really moved by Roof displaying a Confederate flag ... still think a ton of non sequitir dots were connected. And I don't agree with Jon Stewart that Confederate statues and street names ever lent Roof any kind of sanction for his actions. Roof was a highly exceptional nut that absolutely was not "made" by anything further than his proximate environment -- household, close friends and family, etc. Not by street names or statues.

 

[TPW]

There's not an infinite amount of time and attention to pay to issues. I don't understand how not paying attention to an issue until an event draws your attention to it is some sort of failing.

I'd say the event didn't draw the attention to the Confederate-monument issue organically. Many members of the media fashioned the connection out of whole cloth.

I'm not really moved by Roof displaying a Confederate flag ... still think a ton of non sequitir dots were connected. And I don't agree with Jon Stewart that Confederate statues and street names ever lent Roof any kind of sanction for his actions. Roof was a highly exceptional nut that absolutely was not "made" by anything further than his proximate environment -- household, close friends and family, etc. Not by street names or statues.

Oh, come on. Everyone knows that vile displays of evil Confederates are extremely provocative.

 

[Buckfast 1]

I imagine people's facebook page has instances of people hopping on one side or the other of this issue. And all I can tell is that every yahoo that is posting pictures and videos in support of the flag were racist dirtbags back in high school, so I imagine not much has changed considering they still live in the same town and hang out with the same friends.

That has definitely been true for my Facebook feed over the past few weeks.

 

[Jayrod]

There's not an infinite amount of time and attention to pay to issues. I don't understand how not paying attention to an issue until an event draws your attention to it is some sort of failing.

I'd say the event didn't draw the attention to the Confederate-monument issue organically. Many members of the media fashioned the connection out of whole cloth.

I'm not really moved by Roof displaying a Confederate flag ... still think a ton of non sequitir dots were connected. And I don't agree with Jon Stewart that Confederate statues and street names ever lent Roof any kind of sanction for his actions. Roof was a highly exceptional nut that absolutely was not "made" by anything further than his proximate environment -- household, close friends and family, etc. Not by street names or statues.

Oh, come on. Everyone knows that vile displays of evil Confederates are extremely provocative.

That one can stay.

This one, for a man tried and hung as a war criminal, should probably go.

 

[Jayrod]

And the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorials probably should all come down as well.

 

[matttyl]

And the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorials probably should all come down as well.

So I guess anything relating to Custer needs to come down as well, right?

 

[Insomniac]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

 

[Christo]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

 

[Insomniac]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

You need to take that up with Chief Justice Salmon P Chase and the majority in Texas vs White. In realpolitik terms they were guilty because they lost.

 

[Jayrod]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?

Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Anybody post this video yet? Goober in Arkansas rips traitor flags from some woman's truck.

http://m.4029tv.com/news/video-shows-men-ripping-confederate-flags-from-truck-while-driving-in-fort-smith/34149646

Shirtless wonder is a moron for sure but the real star of the video is the truck drivin' lady.

For me the real star was the female reporter.

all the real stars were on the flags that were vandalized

 

[tdoss]

And the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorials probably should all come down as well.

So I guess anything relating to Custer needs to come down as well, right?

You're not getting it...just like around this board...only certain races/ethnicities are elevated to protected status.

Go ahead...test the auto filter and see which racial slurs are automatically blocked and which arent.

It's some perverse way of ranking racism or something. I'm not sure who decides or where they hold these meetings but these rankings really feel hypocritical at their core.

 

[Christo]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?

Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

You can renounce your US citizenship.

 

[Jayrod]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

You can renounce your US citizenship.

But then you have to leave, or get a visa which will probably require citizenship somewhere.

 

[Christo]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

You can renounce your US citizenship.

But then you have to leave, or get a visa which will probably require citizenship somewhere.

So?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?

They'll say, "Fine, you're not a citizen. Who cares? What does that have to do with paying taxes?"

 

[GilbertGrape]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?

Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

Wrong. There was nothing in the constitution that said states could not secede. Once they did, they were separate.

 

[Jayrod]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

Wrong. There was nothing in the constitution that said states could not secede. Once they did, they were separate.

Except they took United States property, most notably land, in order to secede. They were a part of the Union as had been agreed to by the original 13 colonies and each state admitted thereafter. There was a mutual agreement, assumed debts, shared investments and common interests at stake both financial and societal. To make the decision to secede was not in their power to do. They had the right to govern their states beyond what was stated in the Constitution but effectively dissolving the Union by splitting off nearly half of it was not a state's right.

They all knew that and that's why they went ahead and fired the first shots. It wasn't really a secession, but a revolt. They were attempting to take by force that which was not legally theirs. Sure, they could have won and made their own country but unless they pulled it off, they were always acting illegally and as traitors.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

And the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorials probably should all come down as well.

So I guess anything relating to Custer needs to come down as well, right?

You're not getting it...just like around this board...only certain races/ethnicities are elevated to protected status.

Go ahead...test the auto filter and see which racial slurs are automatically blocked and which arent.

It's some perverse way of ranking racism or something. I'm not sure who decides or where they hold these meetings but these rankings really feel hypocritical at their core.

I think the rankings are based on draft averages.

 

[Jayrod]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?

They'll say, "Fine, you're not a citizen. Who cares? What does that have to do with paying taxes?"

Maybe nothing but I'm not paying because I don't recognize your right to tax me. Again, what happens then?

And to my point, that's what the Confederate states did. They said I'm not following your rules AND I'm staying right here. Now I double dog dare you to stop me. So Lincoln did.

 

[Jayrod]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

You can renounce your US citizenship.

But then you have to leave, or get a visa which will probably require citizenship somewhere.

So?

That's the point. The South didn't want to leave AND they didn't want to follow the U.S. Rules anymore. They tried to take their ball and make everyone else go home. Doesn't work that way. You can quit the U.S., but you don't get to quit AND keep your land. That land is part of a territory admitted to the U.S. as part of the Union. It is no longer free to join other nations or form its own. That land is now under U.S. Jurisdiction.

 

[GilbertGrape]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

Wrong. There was nothing in the constitution that said states could not secede. Once they did, they were separate.

Except they took United States property, most notably land, in order to secede. They were a part of the Union as had been agreed to by the original 13 colonies and each state admitted thereafter. There was a mutual agreement, assumed debts, shared investments and common interests at stake both financial and societal. To make the decision to secede was not in their power to do. They had the right to govern their states beyond what was stated in the Constitution but effectively dissolving the Union by splitting off nearly half of it was not a state's right.

They all knew that and that's why they went ahead and fired the first shots. It wasn't really a secession, but a revolt. They were attempting to take by force that which was not legally theirs. Sure, they could have won and made their own country but unless they pulled it off, they were always acting illegally and as traitors.

You are 100% wrong. There was nothing preventing them from leaving. In fact, with the exception of Fort Sumter, all armories and Forts in the South were handed over without incident. The thought was, the South had contributed as much as the North to the Federal facilities, so they got to take what was theirs. As to "land", the South got to take that with them. Sorry it doesn't work with your world view, but it's true.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

Wrong. There was nothing in the constitution that said states could not secede. Once they did, they were separate.

Except they took United States property, most notably land, in order to secede. They were a part of the Union as had been agreed to by the original 13 colonies and each state admitted thereafter. There was a mutual agreement, assumed debts, shared investments and common interests at stake both financial and societal. To make the decision to secede was not in their power to do. They had the right to govern their states beyond what was stated in the Constitution but effectively dissolving the Union by splitting off nearly half of it was not a state's right.

They all knew that and that's why they went ahead and fired the first shots. It wasn't really a secession, but a revolt. They were attempting to take by force that which was not legally theirs. Sure, they could have won and made their own country but unless they pulled it off, they were always acting illegally and as traitors.

You are 100% wrong. There was nothing preventing them from leaving. In fact, with the exception of Fort Sumter, all armories and Forts in the South were handed over without incident. The thought was, the South had contributed as much as the North to the Federal facilities, so they got to take what was theirs. As to "land", the South got to take that with them. Sorry it doesn't work with your world view, but it's true.

Cite?

 

[GilbertGrape]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

Burning a copy of the Constitution is not treason."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

By the definition everyone that was in the CSA armed forces and government was guilty of treason. The US decided not to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Whether that was the correct decision is a different question.

That's up for debate. An argument can be made that once the southern states seceded the people in those states were no longer US citizens; thus, incapable of committing treason.

If I argue that I'm not a US citizen and refuse to pay my taxes, how do you think that will go?Just because they declared themselves separate didn't mean they were separate. Which is also why Lincoln didn't ask for a Congressional declaration of war before sending troops south. Despite what they were trying to do, they were never a separate country and were fighting against their own country/government.

So they don't have a legal leg to stand on there. And since there primary cause of fighting was an immoral one, they don't really have a sentimental leg to stand on either...which is why someone like me thinks all of the Confederate glorification that goes on in the South is absurd. They were traitors by definition and they killed their own countrymen to maintain their rights to keep black people as slaves. Its despicable and deserves shame, not honor.

Wrong. There was nothing in the constitution that said states could not secede. Once they did, they were separate.

Except they took United States property, most notably land, in order to secede. They were a part of the Union as had been agreed to by the original 13 colonies and each state admitted thereafter. There was a mutual agreement, assumed debts, shared investments and common interests at stake both financial and societal. To make the decision to secede was not in their power to do. They had the right to govern their states beyond what was stated in the Constitution but effectively dissolving the Union by splitting off nearly half of it was not a state's right.

They all knew that and that's why they went ahead and fired the first shots. It wasn't really a secession, but a revolt. They were attempting to take by force that which was not legally theirs. Sure, they could have won and made their own country but unless they pulled it off, they were always acting illegally and as traitors.

You are 100% wrong. There was nothing preventing them from leaving. In fact, with the exception of Fort Sumter, all armories and Forts in the South were handed over without incident. The thought was, the South had contributed as much as the North to the Federal facilities, so they got to take what was theirs. As to "land", the South got to take that with them. Sorry it doesn't work with your world view, but it's true.

Cite?

Cite is what really happened. You're the History teacher, you should already know. Unless you're hopelessly biased.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

 

[GilbertGrape]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

Prove it wrong. Why did Farragut have to say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? Why didn't the Union still hold those forts? The South didn't capture them from the North. They were just handed over. You know it's true, it just doesn't support your narrative. Unless you're a really bad history teacher.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

Prove it wrong. Why did Farragut have to say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? Why didn't the Union still hold those forts? The South didn't capture them from the North. They were just handed over. You know it's true, it just doesn't support your narrative. Unless you're a really bad history teacher.

still no citation.

 

[GilbertGrape]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

Prove it wrong. Why did Farragut have to say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? Why didn't the Union still hold those forts? The South didn't capture them from the North. They were just handed over. You know it's true, it just doesn't support your narrative. Unless you're a really bad history teacher.

still no citation.

Meh. I took two courses from a prominent scholar on the Civil War who knew EVERYTHING about it. One was pre civil war, one was during. Highly decorated scholar (That means college, not high school or whatever you teach Tanner). If you can't refute my points which are correct, feel free to show your failings with s

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Let me clarify...

The confederacy took land that did not rightfully belong to them. Let's keep it simple an restrict this to US federal property...mainly forts. You are claiming that they had the right to said property.

 

[timschochet]

The North did not voluntarily hand over ANY forts. They were seized easily because they werent fortified, except for Sumter and Moultrie.

But if your implication is the federal government gave these forts to the Confederacy freely of their own accord and by this action implicitly acknowledged the legality of the Confederacy and the right of secession, that's as wrong as it could be. I would also note that not even the Confederacy recognized the right of secession, or else they wouldn't have tired to invade West Virginia.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

Prove it wrong. Why did Farragut have to say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? Why didn't the Union still hold those forts? The South didn't capture them from the North. They were just handed over. You know it's true, it just doesn't support your narrative. Unless you're a really bad history teacher.

still no citation.

Meh. I took two courses from a prominent scholar on the Civil War who knew EVERYTHING about it. One was pre civil war, one was during. Highly decorated scholar (That means college, not high school or whatever you teach Tanner). If you can't refute my points which are correct, feel free to show your failings with s

Holy ####. I had no idea you took TWO courses from a PROMINENT scholar. I feel bad now. Not to mention that you took said courses sometime before 1861 and then actually during the war.

 

[GilbertGrape]

Both wrong, the North did hand over forts. They weren't at war at this point, the people were actually more "civil" towards each other back then.

 

[GilbertGrape]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

Prove it wrong. Why did Farragut have to say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? Why didn't the Union still hold those forts? The South didn't capture them from the North. They were just handed over. You know it's true, it just doesn't support your narrative. Unless you're a really bad history teacher.

still no citation.

Meh. I took two courses from a prominent scholar on the Civil War who knew EVERYTHING about it. One was pre civil war, one was during. Highly decorated scholar (That means college, not high school or whatever you teach Tanner). If you can't refute my points which are correct, feel free to show your failings with s

Holy ####. I had no idea you took TWO courses from a PROMINENT scholar. I feel bad now. Not to mention that you took said courses sometime before 1861 and then actually during the war.

I'm sorry you never aspired to higher education, but hey, you get spend hours trolling a fantasy football board.

 

[timschochet]

Both wrong, the North did hand over forts. They weren't at war at this point, the people were actually more "civil" towards each other back then.

they never voluntarily handed over any property. It was all forcibly seized. If your scholar told you otherwise he was a knucklehead.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Both wrong, the North did hand over forts. They weren't at war at this point, the people were actually more "civil" towards each other back then.

Good god...they handed over forts because they had no choice, dip ####. Not because they recognized any sort of legitimacy.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

That's not a citation, Mr. Foote

Prove it wrong. Why did Farragut have to say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"? Why didn't the Union still hold those forts? The South didn't capture them from the North. They were just handed over. You know it's true, it just doesn't support your narrative. Unless you're a really bad history teacher.

still no citation.

Meh. I took two courses from a prominent scholar on the Civil War who knew EVERYTHING about it. One was pre civil war, one was during. Highly decorated scholar (That means college, not high school or whatever you teach Tanner). If you can't refute my points which are correct, feel free to show your failings with s

Holy ####. I had no idea you took TWO courses from a PROMINENT scholar. I feel bad now. Not to mention that you took said courses sometime before 1861 and then actually during the war.

I'm sorry you never aspired to higher education, but hey, you get spend hours trolling a fantasy football board.

I feel bad now.

 

[GilbertGrape]

The North did not voluntarily hand over ANY forts. They were seized easily because they werent fortified, except for Sumter and Moultrie.

But if your implication is the federal government gave these forts to the Confederacy freely of their own accord and by this action implicitly acknowledged the legality of the Confederacy and the right of secession, that's as wrong as it could be. I would also note that not even the Confederacy recognized the right of secession, or else they wouldn't have tired to invade West Virginia.

LOL. Invade West Virginia. Come on Tim. Read up. THERE WAS NO WEST VIRGINIA before the Civil War. The US created West Virginia from Virginia during the war. Which gives rise to the question: If states aren't allowed to secede, how can a part of a state secede and get approval from the US government?

 

[timschochet]

Even James Buchanan, weak as he was, pro-slavery as he was, refused to recognize the southern right of secession.

 

[GilbertGrape]

Both wrong, the North did hand over forts. They weren't at war at this point, the people were actually more "civil" towards each other back then.

Good god...they handed over forts because they had no choice, dip ####. Not because they recognized any sort of legitimacy.

Absolutely wrong. I strongly encourage you to read up on this. This isn't how things were done back then. You might be edified.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

"So when the 10 rapists surrounded you and told you to lay down and spread your legs, you did so?"

"Yes, but only because I feared for my..."

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this witness is a whore!"

 

[tdoss]

And the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorials probably should all come down as well.

So I guess anything relating to Custer needs to come down as well, right?

You're not getting it...just like around this board...only certain races/ethnicities are elevated to protected status.

Go ahead...test the auto filter and see which racial slurs are automatically blocked and which arent.

It's some perverse way of ranking racism or something. I'm not sure who decides or where they hold these meetings but these rankings really feel hypocritical at their core.

I think the rankings are based on draft averages.

It all makes sense now.

 

[GilbertGrape]

Even James Buchanan, weak as he was, pro-slavery as he was, refused to recognize the southern right of secession.

Sure, so did Jackson. So did Lincoln. The common thread was that they wanted to the Union to survive. Lincoln was willing to support an amendment that would make slavery legal in the South FOREVER. The South didn't go for it because it was a business and they wanted to expand. In every major conflict over anything, if you look long enough, you find money.

 

[timschochet]

Both wrong, the North did hand over forts. They weren't at war at this point, the people were actually more "civil" towards each other back then.

Good god...they handed over forts because they had no choice, dip ####. Not because they recognized any sort of legitimacy.

Absolutely wrong. I strongly encourage you to read up on this. This isn't how things were done back then. You might be edified.

OK. Please tell us where we can "read up" on this.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The North did not voluntarily hand over ANY forts. They were seized easily because they werent fortified, except for Sumter and Moultrie.

But if your implication is the federal government gave these forts to the Confederacy freely of their own accord and by this action implicitly acknowledged the legality of the Confederacy and the right of secession, that's as wrong as it could be. I would also note that not even the Confederacy recognized the right of secession, or else they wouldn't have tired to invade West Virginia.

LOL. Invade West Virginia. Come on Tim. Read up. THERE WAS NO WEST VIRGINIA before the Civil War. The US created West Virginia from Virginia during the war. Which gives rise to the question: If states aren't allowed to secede, how can a part of a state secede and get approval from the US government?

to keep it simple...VA was in a state of rebellion. A big chunk of VA eventually said "uh, we would still be part of the Union."

 

[GilbertGrape]

The North did not voluntarily hand over ANY forts. They were seized easily because they werent fortified, except for Sumter and Moultrie.

But if your implication is the federal government gave these forts to the Confederacy freely of their own accord and by this action implicitly acknowledged the legality of the Confederacy and the right of secession, that's as wrong as it could be. I would also note that not even the Confederacy recognized the right of secession, or else they wouldn't have tired to invade West Virginia.

LOL. Invade West Virginia. Come on Tim. Read up. THERE WAS NO WEST VIRGINIA before the Civil War. The US created West Virginia from Virginia during the war. Which gives rise to the question: If states aren't allowed to secede, how can a part of a state secede and get approval from the US government?

to keep it simple...VA was in a state of rebellion. A big chunk of VA eventually said "uh, we would still be part of the Union."

Or, to be more precise, a part of a state wanted to SECEDE, which you've been arguing is illegal, but that the USA thought was JUST FINE DURING the Civil War.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The North did not voluntarily hand over ANY forts. They were seized easily because they werent fortified, except for Sumter and Moultrie.

But if your implication is the federal government gave these forts to the Confederacy freely of their own accord and by this action implicitly acknowledged the legality of the Confederacy and the right of secession, that's as wrong as it could be. I would also note that not even the Confederacy recognized the right of secession, or else they wouldn't have tired to invade West Virginia.

LOL. Invade West Virginia. Come on Tim. Read up. THERE WAS NO WEST VIRGINIA before the Civil War. The US created West Virginia from Virginia during the war. Which gives rise to the question: If states aren't allowed to secede, how can a part of a state secede and get approval from the US government?

to keep it simple...VA was in a state of rebellion. A big chunk of VA eventually said "uh, we would still be part of the Union."

Or, to be more precise, a part of a state wanted to SECEDE, which you've been arguing is illegal, but that the USA thought was JUST FINE DURING the Civil War.

This makes no sense. Have a good night, whatever alias this is.