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 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.
fwiw, don't expect to get FACTS from N-S on any subject. his "stock in trade" (as The DAMNyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA) is : evasions, deceit, 1/2-truths,gossip,opinion passed off as facts, nonsense/bilge & other "diversions from the truth".
fwiw, you'll also never get him to admit that anything he is "selling" is worth-LESS and/or NONSENSE.
he & hillery ROTTEN klintoon have a LOT in common in that regard.
Go for it, dude. If the moderators are going to start banning people for responding to posts, they may as well just shut down FR altogether.
Want to look again?
Likewise swattie, I double-dog dare ya.
You remind me of the story of “old Shep”.
There once was a boy who had a big ol dog named Shep. Shep was a a nondescript mutt of indistinct parentage, breed and dispossession (of course he loved his Boy, so they made a good team).
One day the dog and his Boy were walking down the street when Shep spied a fine looking poodle and rushed over to make friendly with her. Now the poodle’s master didn’t take at all kindly to having her carefully coiffed pet taken by any old cur, so she started to swat at ol Shep in a futile effort to run off the beast.
Failing at that, she cried to the Boy, “Boy, can’t you do anything to stop this?!” The Boy, who had been watching with amusement thought about it for a moment, went over to Shep, lifted his tail, and inserted his index finger into Shep’s bum.
Shep immediately let out a yelp, disengaged himself, and ran off.
The lady regained her composure and asked the lad, “Boy, how did you know to do that?”
The Boy looked at her and replied, “Shucks ma’am, everybody knows that ol Shep likes to dish it out, but he just can’t take it”
The point of the whole exercise has been astoundingly easy: treat me with respect and you’ll get it in return. Dis me and you’ll get it in spades. I can’t help it if you can’t take it.
You’ve fallen into a careless and sloppy habit of slandering people and that’s probably because you’ve been allowed to get away with it. There’s nothing I can do (or have any inclination to try to do), but I can call you on it, and will.
You would have been well-served to follow through on Highball’s advice - don’t post to, or about me, and your troubles all go away. Playing that cloying game of “Tell rockrr that he’s a poo-poo-head” ain’t gonna cut it.
Sprout some nads, get a life, and grow up swattie...
“And I’m not sure what it is that trumped ‘no taxation without representation’.”
Easy. Lincoln’s stated goals sounded the death knell of the Republic. The Constitution did not call for the national government to be pre-eminent and all-powerful. The Constitution set forth the parameters for an equal partnership between the individual states and the United States (i.e., the national government). In some respects, the Constitution established that the national government was subordinate to the states. Lincoln very avidly supported the idea that the states should be subordinate to the national government. He got his wish, and we’ve suffered ever since. Can you honestly believe that the bloated, incompetent, oppressive national government that we have today bears anything even remotely close to what the Founding Fathers intended and created? Lincoln set the stage for what we have today (and FDR and LBJ expanded on it).
Speaking of the colonies, do you realize the colonials (i.e., British subjects) had far more freedoms than what we have today? The British government in 1775 (I say 1775 because that was when the revolution really began in earnest) was nowhere near as oppressive as our national government today. Maybe it was due to logistics, as Britain was in those days so far away (no modern means of travel), though Britain had its bureaucrats and politicians and military throughout the colonies.
But, the national government is safe, mainly due to the fact the American people (as a generalization) not only have become complacent, and complicit, but they lack the will to do anything serious about their coming servitude. We are ceasing to be citizens, and are becoming subjects. Unfortunately, there is a very good chance a hardcore marxist will be elected president of the United States in November.
Don’t misunderstand me. I love my country, and I fought for her and would gladly do so again. But my country is NOT the government! Bill Clinton said there was no distinction between the country and its government, but that was spoken like the true totalitarian socialist he was and is. There is a huge difference between one’s country and one’s government. My America is the Constitution and the dream of liberty it established. When I was in the Air Force during Vietnam the oath I took was to the Constitution, not to the Nixon Administration, or to Congress, or to any government agency. In my oath I swore to defend the Constitution and obey and follow the lawful orders of my superiors, and that went all the way to the top, and Nixon was my CIC. But my allegiance was not to Nixon. My allegiance was to my country and its Constitution. It still is.
What stated goal was that? Quote please.
Then why didn't the rest of the country threaten to leave I wonder?
We don't know that. As Shelby Foote said, the American Genius was the art of compromise, and this is where both sides failed at this point in history
We do, actually. Look at the fate of the Crittenden Compromise and the Washington Peace Conference. Look at the more outrageous proposals floated by Toombs and Davis and Douglas and Hindman. The first two were compromises that either allowed the expansion of slavery and none went anywhere. Two in the second set were proposals that either allowed the expansion or denied it. They, too, went nowhere though the Corwin amendment most closely resembled Sewards. The Davis, Toombs, and Hindman proposals were surrenders, and never had a chance. In the end none were acceptable to both sides.
Just like the Corwin Amendentment most likely would have.
But the Corwin amendment allowed the government to limit slavery to where it currently existed, and to outlaw its spread to the territories. The confederate constitution guaranteed that slavery would never be limited and that every bit of territory the confederacy acquired would be slave territory. That's the difference between the two, and the difference that the South would not accept.
“There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally.”
This was untested at the time. States power wasn’t so limited, and under the 10th amendment, federal power was. The argument was settled fairly clearly though.
But to go back and say that states needed a specifically enumerated “right” in the Constitution to secede is sort of ridiculous.
“So since their acts were illegal, that made them a rebellion.”
A matter of perspective, and perhaps a distinction without a difference. History calls it “Civil War” southerners proudly called themselves (and some still do) “rebels”. I presume that term of endearment has something to do with “rebellion”.
If you are arguing that southern heritage is somehow diminished by referring to the Civil War as a rebellion then you’d be wrong - but I’m not sure you are. In fact, I’m not sure why anyone on either side of the Mason-Dixon line should care about the Civil War being also called a “rebellion”.
My only regret about the Civil War outcome is the gradual loss of the 10th Amendment - which has allowed the government to grow unchecked ever since the Civil War. I suspect it will take something every bit as traumatic as the Civil War to eventually restore the 10th amendment to it’s original intent, if it were to ever happen at all.
Untested, but not unconsidered. Many of the leaders prior to the rebellion believed that secession in any form was not allowed. Madison himself denied that unilateral secession was permitted, but left open the idea of secession with the consent of the states.
A matter of perspective, and perhaps a distinction without a difference. History calls it Civil War southerners proudly called themselves (and some still do) rebels. I presume that term of endearment has something to do with rebellion.
Until early in the 20th century the offical name for the conflict so far as the military was concerned was "War of the Rebellion". I confess to being a traditionalist.
If you are arguing that southern heritage is somehow diminished by referring to the Civil War as a rebellion then youd be wrong - but Im not sure you are. In fact, Im not sure why anyone on either side of the Mason-Dixon line should care about the Civil War being also called a rebellion.
I am not trying to diminish Southern heritage in any way, shape, or form. Unfortunately for many people around here, supporting their Southern heritage requires lying about my Northern heritage. That's what I try and correct.
Beyond its historical accuracy and greater precision, this term has an elegance of expression exceeding that of "Civil War".
On the other hand, "War of Northern Aggression" is not only historically misleading but it has an abrasive ugliness of style. There is also an assumption in the use of this term that "northern aggression" was bad. It was only bad in the same sense that American aggression against Hitler was.
Hooray for northern aggression!
Lest you yankees get too far ahead of yourselves demeaning the South, I call out your obvious jealousy for all things southern as indicated by the “Hitler” reference when discussing the South and the Civil War.
“I am not trying to diminish Southern heritage in any way, shape, or form. Unfortunately for many people around here, supporting their Southern heritage requires lying about my Northern heritage. That’s what I try and correct.”
You are correcting nothing. The Civil War is still the Civil War, and you are just stirring the pot. That’s OK, we like it better here in the South, as you obviously do as well. Why do you think that is?
In no way do I equate the people as property slave regime known as the "Confederate States of America" with the mad genocidal rule of German Nazism. Not quite.
And it's not jealousy, it's contempt. The CSA is one of the best buffoon acts in the pageant of human history.
I try to.
Thats OK, we like it better here in the South, as you obviously do as well. Why do you think that is?
Why do you think I like it better in the South? I've no desire to live there, don't vacation there, and no plans on moving there. I was born and raised in Illinois and currently live in Kansas and I expect that I'll remain here for the rest of my life.
And let me hasten to add that I spent just about all my active duty Navy career, almost 9 years, stationed in the South so it's not like I've never been there. I don't have any bad memories of my time down there, the people I met were nice enough, the place I was stationed at was nice enough as well. But for all that I don't have any desire to return there to live or work. Or anything else.
Why do you like it better in the South? I imagine it's because it's home to you. Why do I have no desire to move there? Because it isn't home to me, and never could be.
Anything else you want to know?
Uh, no. I quoted it. And you have the effrontery to tell me I "breezed right by" it?
Nice herring, btw -- what color was it before you painted it?
The Palmerston government wouldn't recognize the confederacy .....
But they almost went to war over the Trent affair.
They said they wouldn't recognize the Confederacy, like we said we wouldn't recognize Soviet Russia. And we didn't, for a long time.
It'll have to remain a matter of historical conjecture, whether your statement of Palmerston's determination is valid. A Confederate victory at Gettysburg, or a series of them -- Meade would have been expected to wreck his army, to keep the Confederates off Philadelphia -- might have clarified Lord Palmerston's view of the practical side of things. The British are amazingly dry that way.
Invoke Godwin's Law. Game over.
Remember to thank him for playing.
Hello, pouch private. Leading with your chin again?
“And it’s not jealousy, it’s contempt.”
Last time I checked the South was part of America. You are contemptuous of things that are part of you and your history.
“The CSA is one of the best buffoon acts in the pageant of human history.”
Lee, as head of the buffoon army is one of the greatest of Americans. Soldiers the world over study his generalship to this day.
So if he was a buffoon, he was OUR buffoon (the big “our” that includes you and me and the rest of America)
So your bitterness and contempt certainly barely masks something - maybe you got a mint julep thrown in your face, who knows - but it really doesn’t matter. History has already decided that Lee, Jefferson Davis, Jackson were great Americans. You should aspire to be like them - dedicated to their state and honorable men.
That's a big part of the reason -- the bulk of it, imho -- for the war in the first place.
Whiggery won the contest for the country's agenda, at a cost of a million lives.
Nobody else fought a civil war "to end slavery". Another clue that it wasn't about the slaves, or slavery. It was about wrecking the South to move them out of the way.
When Southerners gave teeth to Manifest Destiny, they went to war with Mexico. The Northerners objected to that war, but they had no problem making war on the South for their own manifest destiny, which was to grab control of the empire that Presidents Jackson and Polk had created.
Anyone who wants to say I'm wrong, needs to explain all those fine Victorian townhouses and apartment buildings around Central Park and up and down Park Avenue and the Chicago Loop. People died, so the Four Hundred could live like gods. So did the Founders' republic.
I apologize for inappropriately presuming the blessing of living in the south. Your tagline threw me off, knowing that area quite well I assumed you were part of the efforts to preserve battlefields around Fredericksburg.
The South is indeed home, and it’s history - American history, is awe inspiring. The customs, the love of America, the above average rate of military service, and the independent people that insist on the freedom-deferring governance that is predominant here is a source of pride, an incubator of great leaders, and an excellent model for the rest of America to follow.
I’m sure Kansas is ok, too.
Only in Confederate wet dreams. Sure, there was a lot of grumbling and a few regiments were sent to Canada, but all that really happened is that the British issued a demand for the release of their agents and the US released them. End of story. And the US had made its point. Britain never came as close to recognizing the confederacy again as they had before the Trent affair.
Is that like "free association"? lol
Couldn't resist, sorry.
And in Prince Albert's coffin.
Read some history, dude. The good prince wrecked his health over those diplomatic contortions and exertions to avoid war with the United States.
If anyone "made a point" it was Great Britain.
Albert had been sickly for months by the time the Trent affair came along and was likely already suffering from the typhoid fever that would kill him by that time. All he appears to have done is to write a letter telling Palmerston to tone down his response a bit. Blaming his death on the Trent affair is absurd. Blame it on poor sanitation.
The almost went to war, but they didn't. They came that close to recognizing the confederacy but they didn't. You build your history on might-have-beens and almost-happens.
It'll have to remain a matter of historical conjecture, whether your statement of Palmerston's determination is valid. A Confederate victory at Gettysburg, or a series of them -- Meade would have been expected to wreck his army, to keep the Confederates off Philadelphia -- might have clarified Lord Palmerston's view of the practical side of things.
The British came closest to recognizing the confederacy in the summer of 1862 after Second Bull Run. They were waiting for one more victory, one more sign that the confederacy was a going concern and would probably win their struggle. Then came Antietam and an end to the campaign in the North, and talk was put on hold. Next came Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the chance of recognition ended completely so long as the war continued. Roy Jenkins covers the discussions that occured in his biography of Gladstone. Once Lincoln made slavery an issue then Palmerston made it clear that recognition of a government so closely tied to slavery was impossible. So the confederacy could have won at Gettysburg. They could have racked up several wins after that and British recognition would not have been forthcoming. Not until they actually won their rebellion and forced the Union to recognize them would any recognition every have come from the Palmerston government. And that confederate victory never happened, and would never have happened so long as Lincoln was president.
And when your cohorts like lentulusgracchus haul out their commie references and liberal label and direct them towards those who's only crime is opposing the Southern rebellion, what are they trying to say?
Nobody but the South launched a civil war to protect slavery.
Anyone who wants to say I'm wrong, needs to explain all those fine Victorian townhouses and apartment buildings around Central Park and up and down Park Avenue and the Chicago Loop.
I'm from Chicago. The Loop is a business district. No townhouses.
Let's look at some of the larger import figures for the Port of New York in 1863 (Source: The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1863, D. Appleton & Co., New York, pages 192 and 193, published in 1868). Values below are in 1863 dollars, I believe. New York, as you'll remember, was the largest American port for imports by far.
Drugs, etc. $8,524,030
Sugars (bbls, boxes) $14,534,552
Out of $117,328,929 total
The North was importing cotton and sugar, two products of the South.
From your post 137: "They got little other than agricultural products, mainly cotton, and there was no other source that they could replace it with.
Wool was imported by the Northern mills when they couldn't get enough cotton [Link].
When the Civil War in the 1860s cut the amount of cotton reaching New England mills, the textile companies turned more and more to wool-cloth manufacturing.
Score cotton, sugar and wool as replacement imports for materials that had largely come previously from the South. Those three items total about 30% of the New York imports for 1863. I'm guessing that most of the sugar used by the North had previously come from the South, but don't know for sure. There were 100,000 slaves used by Southern sugar plantations in 1849.
FYI, the drugs, etc., item was mainly drugs and chemicals. It included various medicines and medical treatments of the times (e.g., quinine, iodine, bicarbonate of soda, caster oil, morphine, opium, leeches, Peruvian bark, blue gall, bismuth, camphor). Chemicals included acids, alkali, alum, ammonia, arsenic, potash, saltpeter, phosphorus, sulfur, etc.) The medicines were items blocked from the South by the Northern blockade. The South offered to buy those medicines to use on Northern prisoners in Confederate prisons, but the North refused.
“And when your cohorts like lentulusgracchus haul out their commie references and liberal label and direct them towards those who’s only crime is opposing the Southern rebellion, what are they trying to say?”
Ask him. I can only speak for myself, and I didn’t say that. Independent thought, word, and deed is a trait often found in Southerners. He’ll probably even take responsibility for his words. Taking responsibility is another trait oft found in Southerners in general (and certain Northern governors - but only when caught red-handed).
But at levels which could come nowhere close to accounting for the increase in tariff revenue. Even at the Morrill rates we're talking about less than $5 million. Total duties were over $100 million.
Score cotton, sugar and wool as replacement imports for materials that had largely come previously from the South.
Wool? From the South?
Assuming that any of those medicines would have made it to the Union POWS, they were dying of starvation, exposure, dysentery, and scuvy. All the quinine, iodine, bicarbonate of soda, caster oil, morphine, opium, leeches, Peruvian bark, blue gall, bismuth, and camphor in the world would not have helped them. The South could have cut their death rate by providing food, shelter, and clean water. They didn't.
“My only regret about the Civil War outcome is the gradual loss of the 10th Amendment - which has allowed the government to grow unchecked ever since the Civil War. I suspect it will take something every bit as traumatic as the Civil War to eventually restore the 10th amendment to its original intent, if it were to ever happen at all.”
I had posted much the same thing in an earlier comment. The 10th Amendment made clear the states were at loeast equals to the national government, and in some respects, superior to it. The Civil War (a label I think is wholly inaccurate for what transpired) set the stage for the amendments and laws immediately subsequent to it that so emasculated the 10th Amendment as to render it practically meaningless. The Civil War put the blindfold on the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment fired the volley that executed it. Since the 14th Amendment the national governemnt and the courts have been poking the corpse with sticks, in further torment. One of the clearest examples of how the 14th Amendment killed the 10th Amendment is Roe v. Wade. Prior to 1973 it was up to the individual states as to how they wanted to address the abortion issue. Roe v. Wade, and the “right of privacy” it pulled out of thin air, held that the states had no say in the matter at all, that abortion was a national right that superseded and trumped any state decisions.
“Lee, as head of the buffoon army is one of the greatest of Americans. Soldiers the world over study his generalship to this day. So if he was a buffoon, he was OUR buffoon (the big ‘our’ that includes you and me and the rest of America).”
I guess Lincoln thought Lee was a buffoon, as well, which was probably why he had General Scott offer Lee command of all the Union forces. But, Lee believed in the Constitution, and the sanctity of the 10th Amendment, and he declined Scott’s offer, saying he could not take up the sword against his home state of Virginia.
“The South is indeed home, and its history - American history, is awe inspiring. The customs, the love of America, the above average rate of military service, and the independent people that insist on the freedom-deferring governance that is predominant here is a source of pride, an incubator of great leaders, and an excellent model for the rest of America to follow.”
“Wool? From the South?”
Oh, for God’s sake. He didn’t say “wool from the South.” Northern textile mills imported wool from Europe and Canada as a replacement for the cotton they were no longer getting from the South.
“Since the 14th Amendment the national governemnt and the courts have been poking the corpse with sticks, in further torment.”
I think the country thirsts for the return of the primacy of states rights except for the specific federal functions enumerated in the Constitution.
This might start to happen when the government defaults on all the promises and obligations it has made to the citizenry. I think this way is possibly the road back to Constitutional sanity. Of course it will take government default on a massive scale and an ensuing economic depression. I used to think this would be highly unlikely, but watching the government interfering in financial markets after causing the problem in the first place - I see this as more possible than ever before.
Once the citizenry realizes the federal government checks aren’t coming anymore, they’ll look to their states and local governments to lead them. If they have selected leaders wisely and don’t depend on someone else to take care of them, they will grow to enjoy the minimalist role of the federal government.
I think the South will fare better than most states in this scenario. The North in general is not as independent minded as a matter of culture - it will be tougher for them.
Don't go throwing a hissy fit.
Which is why Lee said he following, "But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . ."
Lee knew the Southern actions were illegal. But he chose loyalty to state over loyalty to country and when Virginia joined the rebellion, so did he.
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.