Skip to comments.Confederate Flag represents both heritage and hate
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 ...
it has been my experience that NONE of the DYs here can understood the TRUTH, as they've been LIED TO, made FOOLS of & just cannot admit that they've been VICTIMIZED by KNOWING liars.
i'm reminded, as i write these lines, of the comment of one of the DYs a couple of years ago===> If you're correct, it means that everything i ever learned in school was a lie AND that my family were the oppressors in the Civil War.
i said, "EXACTLY TRUE!"
What's the matter, dude -- can't you read? You just quoted it! After I quoted it! That's twice!
the obvious truth that the struggle was for separation on the one part and compulsory retention on the other
The Times laid out plain, in that selfsame 'graf you cited and quoted, both the reason, and the pretext, for the Civil War.
Or I should say, Lincoln's rationale -- his second of two -- for the war. When the cost in bodies was skyrocketing, he needed to "elevate his game" from forcible repatriation of the departed States, to a "liberation crusade". As a practical, down-to-earth political measure, of the type that could be appreciated by the likes of Thurlow Weed and Boss Tweed alike.
With the country divided on sectional lines and the National Democracy (party) in shambles, Lincoln was the master of the North. He dictated its politics and its government for four years. He'd split the country in two, and he had the bigger piece -- ownership of the House of Representatives, and, with the admission of Kansas in 1861, a majority in the Senate as well, as long as he could keep the country divided on sectional rather than old party lines.
"To slavery we have ever entertained the most rooted aversion. Not all the valour, not all the success of the South, has ever blinded us to this black spot on their fair escocheon. But even tainted as they are with this foul stain..."
The Palmerston government wouldn't recognize the confederacy so long as they retained their connection with slavery. Which meant that the Palmerston government would never recognize the confederacy.
Ran? No. Got bored dealing with your conspiracy theories.
Look back at the Dred Scott decision. If blacks were not and could never be citizens, then free or slave they did not deserve representation in Congress. So the South shouldn't have even had the 3/5ths total.
The population of the north had risen to the point that south had lost it's power to control and even be equal with the northern states.
And what in the Constitution guaranteed the South the right to control the Northern states, much less be equal to them?
Before there had been an unwritten power sharing arrangement in the executive branch: southern president, northern vice president or vice versa.
And what prominent Southern Republican was available to run with Lincoln in 1860?
If all they really cared about was protecting slavery they could have stayed in the union and helped pass the Corwin Amendment, or some other deviation of it.
The Corwin Amendment had a fatal flaw that the South would not have stood for - it protected slavery only where it existed and did not protect the expansion of slavery into the territories. Nor would any amendment protecting the expansion of slavery ever pass out of the House. So the South did leave, and the did leave to protect their institution of slavery, and in the process adopted a constitution that protected slavery in ways never imagined in the real Constitution. The confederate constitution specifically guaranteed slave ownership, slavery in the territories, slave imports, and most likely guaranteed that an amendment ending slavery was impossible to pass.
Let's get back to this for a moment. You said, "The centralized federalism desired by Lincoln..." was a stronger reason for rebellion than total lack of any representation in government. Can you specify exactly what it was that Lincoln was espousing that made the Southern actions necessary? I've read the Republican party platform. I've read Lincoln's speeches. And I'm not sure what it is that trumped 'no taxation without representation'.
the union was not & is not "indivisible".
the south had every right to leave the union, when faced with the TYRANNY of the northern financial/social/industrial elites and the "looming dictatorship" of lincoln & his merry band of thugs/criminals/cheap, scheming, politicans & south-HATERS.
unless you can PROVE that ANY of the individual states EVER ceded their RIGHT to depart the union "on their own motion" (for any/no reason), your position & that of the RADICAL REVISIONISTS/unionists is SILLY & as PHONY as the "one nation,indivisible ------" part of "the pledge of allegiance".
"it just wouldn't do" for The DAMNyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA to actually LOSE an argument, as the REPUTATION of "the Minister" for PERFECTION must be "utterly seamless & perfect".( sarcasm button: ON!)
Pardon me, but your posts are full of it, have always been full of it, and add no value to the discussion.
So, when in the last four months did you decide that you'd been spelling "Wirz" wrong? And was the photo that I posted NOT of his actual grave?
The simplest way to ensure an NS defeat would be to mount a superior argument. You have never done that. The best I have seen thus far has been a technical draw, and that only because the fight centered around an aspect of minutia so small that neither side could locate the factual evidence necessary to definitively prove their contention one way or the other. Naturally, since facts were involved, you were not.
Good luck on the whole rising again thing.
Well I think stand would consider that a horrible piece of libel being compared to me. But I, on the other hand, see a resemblance between you and him. Both of you are given to unproven claims. According to you the Kansas GOP was able to pressure Morrison to file charges but not Kline. According to you Kline is the greatest advocate since Clarence Darrow, but he still couldn't make a case against Tiller. And then there's all those politicians you say Tiller has paid off. Yes, I can see a lot of similarities between the quality of your posts and the quality of his.
And when Tiller has been tried and convicted, and Phill has hit the Operation Rescue rubber-chicken circuit, what will you have to complain about then?
Are we thinking of the same stand watie?
i neither READ (nor care to read) their LIES/VULGARITY or ANSWER them, ever again.
what i WILL do is start "hitting the abuse button" (as you know, i've never "hit" it before, but i'm sick of them) every time i see on the "post history',that they have posted TO me.