The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Davy Buck]

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

[phi11yguy19]

Oh, and the South claimed that they had 13 states. Not the 11 you said. Did Durand miss a couple?

No, but a well-informed student of history like yourself apparently has trouble reading his history. ELEVEN states seceded. The 13 stars on the flag (which must be to what you refer) were to honorably acknowledge Missouri and Kentucky who never (legally) seceded yet fought mostly for the Confederacy (as did many Northerners despite their legislatures, thus the awful brother vs. brother & father vs. son stories).

Is K-Stater a teenage troll?

[central_va]

There was never any natural right to unilateral secession

Only in your fascists mind. Nothing but hatespeech and Northern revisionism. You sound psychotic, you need help. WTBS threads really bring out the kooks.

[phi11yguy19]

So...you're claiming that Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama and Tennessee and Arkansas and Florida and Texas were all states before they were admitted to the Union?

Really? Texas? Yes, independent state for 8 years prior to joining the Union. Why do you ask?

The others have their own fun origins of statehood, but you do realize none of them fought in the revolutionary war or signed the original Constitution, correct? The Constitution was ratified and in effect before RI and VT joined...what were they before they did so...some word other than free and independent States? Did State constitutions exist before the federal one?

Were you trying to make a point?

[phi11yguy19]

KKK and Union League...amazing history there. Many court records of Union League members performing atrocities dressed as KKK to soil their image that were conveniently dismissed. At the time - KKK version 1.0 so to speak - they formed to discuss the same government issues as before the war, but were afraid to show their faces with the military Reconstruction governments in place. There are also many stories of them DEFENDING blacks against violent crimes. The second and third (current) comings of the KKK are truly awful and bear no resemblance or mission of the originals.

A stroll through and glance at the pictures on the walls of Lincoln’s Union League members will show how cultural diverse and compassionate they’ve been.

[TheBigIf]

I guess I hit a nerve.

It is you who has a fascist mind.

You do not believe in the rule of law but instead believe that your lack of morality is law when it is not.

You do not have any right to simply tear down the Constitution as your side fought for.

It is you who are the kook still fighting for the abolition of the United States Constitution based upon the traitorous actions of democrats 150 years ago.

It is frightening how lost you are.

[central_va]

You were banned, go away.

[TheBigIf]

You should be banned so go away.

[central_va]

Most thinking people who understand the USC realize that it is silent on the issue of secession. The North could have easily slipped in a post war amendment codifying secession as illegal. Why didn’t they do that? I’ll tell you why, because an amendment making secession unconstitutional would be an admission that it was legal at the time of Southern secession. Simple as that jackwagon.

[southernsunshine]

No, it was about defending it.

Slavery wasn't the only issue discussed in those secession conventions, not by a long shot. Since the North wasn't fighting to end slavery and since the South could have maintained their peculiar institution by remaining in the Union...you know what that means, right?

[central_va]

You should be banned so go away.

Non-sequitur aka K-Stater was banned 3 months ago. He should be reported.

[TheBigIf]

So then do you also believe in an individual right to secession?

You did say earlier in this thread that you felt it was a ‘natural right’ that did not need to be expressed in our Constitution.

So is it only a group ‘political’ right that was unspoken or was it also an individual right in your mind?

The fact is that there was no ‘special’ unspoken right for states to unilaterally secede anymore then there was a ‘natural right’ for individuals to secede.

[TheBigIf]

Then report him. I personally also think that you need to be looked at more closely here at FR.

[central_va]

So then do you also believe in an individual right to secession?

I don't know Adolph, but since the only other political entity mentioned in the USC is the state, then I assume the state is the entity that can secede form the FedGov™.

[TheBigIf]

So I guess that your Constitution does not start with the words....

“We the People”

That figures. In your mind the Constitution has nothing to do with individual rights I guess.

And you call me Adolph? You are his spitting image in how you distort the Constitution and the founding of our individual liberty.

[central_va]

Then report him. I personally also think that you need to be looked at more closely here at FR.

I personally think you are a fascist and have no concept of the republic. You are politically retarded in that area as most statist seem to be.

[phi11yguy19]

The war waged by Confederate democrats

Strike 1 - They walked away/seceded due to the same major differences that were present at the signing of the Constitution when the experiment was taken to see if a federal republic between such different states could survive. When the North decided it was their right/duty/whatever to attack the South and "set things straight" so to speak, that Constitutional agreement was officially flipped on its head.

For the Confederate democrats and still today the Progressive democrats the concept that the Constitution could mean whatever it is that they want it to say persists. There was never any natural right to unilateral secession

Strike 2 - There is NO similarity between the Jeffersonian/Jackson/Calhoun Democrats and the Wilson/FDR/LBJ/Obama Democrats. One group took the Constitution literally since they knew history's lesson echoed by the founders that laws based on the cumulative experience of man shouldn't be changed for the persuasions of the day. If the changes should happen, let them happen deliberately with intelligent debate and thought. Today's "pass the bill to find out what's in it" Democrats do not echo that belief.

And secession was addressed by multiple presidents (like Jefferson's inauguration speech) as being as completely voluntary as the decision for accession. It wasn't a contract that forced any state into servitude - it was a experiment in cooperation/federation.

Seperation of Church and State was started by Progreesive democrats aligned with Confederate demorats and their love of the KKK.

Strike 3 - The violent wave of the KKK was founded to attack R's, but they were also anti-Catholic Protestants, not separation of church and state types.

And for the record, I've been independent my whole life until after the '08 election when I registered R. If I thought they were the "party of Lincoln" still I'd jump ship in a heartbeat (as I likely will if they don't show some backbone in the next couple years).

[TheBigIf]

There is a well laid out lineage of the democrat party from the Confederate democrats up unto their second rise to power as the Confederate democrats.

Woodrow Wilson was the first Southern (Confederate) democrat to gain the Presidency after the Civil War and he was aligned with the Confederate lineage, the Confederate terorrist cult (the KKK), and was also the Grandfather of the democrat war against our Constitution called the Progressive movement.

It is obvious as to the lineage of the Confederacy unto the Progressive movement and their continual war against the Union and the United States Constitution.

[central_va]

You want to comment on this post mein FRiend?

Post 128

[TheBigIf]

When one political faction (Confederacy - democrats) is pushing treason already why would anyone stop to pursue sonmething like an Amendment?

It is the Confederates who should of sought an Amendment to justify their extremist views and not the other way around, imo.

[central_va]

When one political faction (Confederacy - democrats) is pushing treason already why would anyone stop to pursue sonmething[sic] like an Amendment? It is the Confederates who should of sought an Amendment to justify their extremist views and not the other way around, imo.

The USC is still silent on the issue, whether you agree or not, epic fail. I see you are no Constitutional expert.