If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

[Bush92]

The divisions between North and South date back to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The Civil War was not over slavery but more about northern power brokers and industrialist seizing southern wealth.

Why are people like you so afraid to recognize the obvious truth that slavery lay at the heart of every issue contributing to the war?

States rights and the constitutionality of leaving the Union was the far larger issue...but some saw a way to profit.

 

[Bush92]

No it was not.

Of course it was. Where does the Constitution give the president authority to liberate anyone of their property?

Article II, Section 2

WRONG!

Right. A state of war existed regardless of the fact that the so-called confederacy was never a separate nation.

Right Wingers are FULL of emotion. They are like High School girls.

Every time something strange happens they scream, "WAR!" They never spend time to research what that war costs or if it was even necessary.

From the left: "Waaaaa what about my rights!!!!!"..."Let's protest whine and cry...liberal media will pick-up our cause."

 

[AntiParty]

The divisions between North and South date back to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The Civil War was not over slavery but more about northern power brokers and industrialist seizing southern wealth.

Why are people like you so afraid to recognize the obvious truth that slavery lay at the heart of every issue contributing to the war?

States rights and the constitutionality of leaving the Union was the far larger issue...buy some saw a way to profit.

The "union" in that statement was saving America, the UNION of STATES.

His recoil about Slavery back then is similar to our resistance to bigots today.

 

[Unkotare]

The divisions between North and South date back to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The Civil War was not over slavery but more about northern power brokers and industrialist seizing southern wealth.

"North/South" doesn't matter post Civil War.

If you think it does, I'll be happy to listen to your perspective on which states and perspectives.

I'm guessing you will play me Hank Williams JR, "if the south would have won"

It mattered quite a bit during Reconstruction.

 

[HUGGY]

If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

Rabbi is full of poop. Fighting for the freedom to enslave other human beings is wrong and just plain stupid. Was Hitler just innocently waging war to ensure his god given right to rid the world of Jews and gypsies?

I don't care how valiantly the soldiers of the South fought. What they were fighting to preserve was just flat wrong. The fact that they couldn't see how morally wrong they were is disturbing. The fact that those in the South still cling to the guise that somehow their side was just as brave and righteous as the North and need a banner to display that so called fact is ridiculous. What they were fighting and dying for was unconscionable. There is no other way to describe it. There is no other way to remember it.

 

[Faun]

The confederacy was NOT a legally or legitimately separate, independent nation. Never, loser wannabe.

Then Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a completely unconstitutional act .....

No it was not.

Of course it was. Where does the Constitution give the president authority to liberate anyone of their property?

Article II, Section 2

WRONG! (Unless the CSA is an enemy of state we are at war with)

Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein other- wise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

There's the text, bucko... It gives him power as Commander in Chief... power to make treaties and nominate/appoint Ambassadors, Judges, etc... fill vacancies.... not seeing anything about confiscating property owned by citizens there.

You want to give her another go, or are you willing to admit that the president has no such authority under the Constitution?

What property did Lincoln confiscate?

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union was never renounced. It was continued and re-enforced under the new Constitution. Rebellious individuals who tried to lead people against the US were resisted by US forces and defeated.

 

[Unkotare]

The divisions between North and South date back to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The Civil War was not over slavery but more about northern power brokers and industrialist seizing southern wealth.

Why are people like you so afraid to recognize the obvious truth that slavery lay at the heart of every issue contributing to the war?

We Americans never want to admit our flaws......

Nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

No it was not.

Of course it was. Where does the Constitution give the president authority to liberate anyone of their property?

Article II, Section 2

WRONG!

Right. A state of war existed regardless of the fact that the so-called confederacy was never a separate nation.

Right Wingers are FULL of emotion.....

And left wingers aren't? Partisan nonsense.

 

[Faun]

And the leaders of the confederacy's purpose was to deny freedom to slaves and to break up the union to preserve slavery.
The Union fought for the freedom of slaves and the preservation of the Union.
Who was the tyrants and who were the criminals of history.

The poor confederate soldiers were the pawns of idiots like you

How can they deny something that hadn't been offered? Again, you seem to be under some misconception that the United States had freed the slaves and the South was rebelling against that... Wasn't the case. The US and the SCOTUS both upheld the institution of slavery, it had not been outlawed, it was not illegal to own slaves, and slaves were legitimately owned property according to YOUR government and Congress.

The states were fighting on the basis of governmental philosophy. Slavery was part of that, but it was not the overarching issue. And it wasn't because Southerners were racist against blacks and Northerners weren't... that had nothing to do with anything. Following the Civil War, over the next 40 years, blacks were slaughtered by the hundreds and thousands across the North, where they had gone to find work. What, did all the 'racist southerners' move to Milwaukee?

But now... the Modern Liberal has convinced themselves of this bizarre alternate history! They've made Lincoln into Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil War is akin to Civil Rights. The North was on the side of the slaves and freedom for all men.. .racial equality! And the abhorrent South was full of racists and bigots who wanted to keep the black man down. You quite simply don't know what the **** you're talking about and you display an enormous ignorance of history.

It amazes me people can be as stupid as you.

Of course the south seceded to preserve slavery. They clearly said so. It hadn't been taken away but the country was moving in that direction. Slavery had already been outlawed in virtually every state in the north and new states were leaning towards prohibiting it as well. To address the south's concerns, the federal government passed the Missouri Compromise, which preserved slavery among the newly admitted states in the south. But that law was effectively repealed in the mid 1850's.

It's like same-sex marriage in the sense that it is not yet the law of the land, but it's moving in that direction. It's already legal in most states and will likely be the law of the land soon. Likewise with slavery in the mid-1800's. The south tried to form their own government which they could employ to protect slavery before it was taken away from them.

 

[Billy000]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

Lol oh my god. Could you be any more of a douche bag?

 

[HappyJoy]

Hater dupes of the public world? What?

 

[Boss]

Once America saw the divide of small brains justifying slavery, we knew something should be done, (CIVIL WAR).

BULLSHIT! Now you're rewriting history to make it sound like the North unleashed the Civil War on the South to defeat slavery!

You are totally insane! Or REALLY REALLY stupid!

The only people you can blame for justifying slavery is the SCOTUS, Congress and presidents of the United States of America. They condoned and upheld slavery for 85 years! They ruled slaves were property! The CSA didn't even exist!

I'll let you read about history on your own time. You catching up seems to be either false facts from bias parties or blatant ignorance of American History.

No sir, MY knowledge of Civil War history is impeccable. Yours is seemingly totally illiterate. You literally tried to claim the North attacked the South to put an end to slavery. That simply did not happen. Slavery was legal in the US for 85 years and only became illegal AFTER the Civil War and passage of two Constitutional Amendments... which were REQUIRED because the US SCOTUS and Congress had ensconced it into law. That was not the fault of the CSA which didn't even exist until 1861.

Southerners did not own slaves because they thought it was okay to own people and the north didn't. They owned slaves because that's how you harvested cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. If cotton, tobacco and sugar cane could grow up north, there would have been just as many slaves up north. Slavery existed because it had always been allowed to exist. From before we were a nation, in the colonial days, we had slavery in America. The founders didn't get rid of it because the agriculture sector depended on slave labor. It was an economics decision and as uncomfortable as it was for some, we maintained it for 85 years before the Civil War. Years before a CSA existed, SCOTUS ruled slaves were legitimately owned property.

Now, I am really sorry that cocky-ass liberals today want to lay claim to some early birth of civil rights here, but you're just not going to be allowed to rewrite history to make your false narrative come true. We're not going to let you get away with that... not today, not tomorrow, not in 100 years! As long as you want to continue displaying your total ignorance of history, we'll be here to set the record straight.

 

[there4eyeM]

If humans have inalienable rights, slavery was and is illegal, in the highest sense.

One would have to be 'high' to think otherwise.

The North did not invade the South. An uprising against the legal government was put down.

 

[Boss]

And the leaders of the confederacy's purpose was to deny freedom to slaves and to break up the union to preserve slavery.
The Union fought for the freedom of slaves and the preservation of the Union.
Who was the tyrants and who were the criminals of history.

The poor confederate soldiers were the pawns of idiots like you

How can they deny something that hadn't been offered? Again, you seem to be under some misconception that the United States had freed the slaves and the South was rebelling against that... Wasn't the case. The US and the SCOTUS both upheld the institution of slavery, it had not been outlawed, it was not illegal to own slaves, and slaves were legitimately owned property according to YOUR government and Congress.

The states were fighting on the basis of governmental philosophy. Slavery was part of that, but it was not the overarching issue. And it wasn't because Southerners were racist against blacks and Northerners weren't... that had nothing to do with anything. Following the Civil War, over the next 40 years, blacks were slaughtered by the hundreds and thousands across the North, where they had gone to find work. What, did all the 'racist southerners' move to Milwaukee?

But now... the Modern Liberal has convinced themselves of this bizarre alternate history! They've made Lincoln into Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil War is akin to Civil Rights. The North was on the side of the slaves and freedom for all men.. .racial equality! And the abhorrent South was full of racists and bigots who wanted to keep the black man down. You quite simply don't know what the **** you're talking about and you display an enormous ignorance of history.

It amazes me people can be as stupid as you.

Of course the south seceded to preserve slavery. They clearly said so. It hadn't been taken away but the country was moving in that direction. Slavery had already been outlawed in virtually every state in the north and new states were leaning towards prohibiting it as well. To address the south's concerns, the federal government passed the Missouri Compromise, which preserved slavery among the newly admitted states in the south. But that law was effectively repealed in the mid 1850's.

It's like same-sex marriage in the sense that it is not yet the law of the land, but it's moving in that direction. It's already legal in most states and will likely be the law of the land soon. Likewise with slavery in the mid-1800's. The south tried to form their own government which they could employ to protect slavery before it was taken away from them.

Well no, you are totally wrong. The South seceded because they felt the Union had overstepped it's power and was about to render a billion dollars worth of their property invalid. There had never been ANY vote in Congress to end slavery nor was there ever a decision by SCOTUS to overturn the institution. It literally took passing and ratifying two amendments AFTER the war to end slavery in America.

You may not realize this, but the State of New York came VERY close to seceding from the Union because they had NO desire to go fight to end slavery. Lincoln himself was desperately trying to push through Congress a plan to get rid of slavery by 1921... he was fine with keeping it until then. His vision for how to end it, namely what to do with all these uneducated and socially unacceptable former slaves, was to ship them off to somewhere else so whites didn't have to live with them. But you pretend like these people CARED about black folks! Even knowing that it took another 100 years after the Civil War to achieve basic Civil Rights. That's astonishing to me... the level of denial you are in.

What you people have done is disgusting to me. You have taken this chapter of history and reformed it so that you can avoid any culpability whatsoever. You're in complete denial of your OWN history! You want to pretend you were standing courageously against slavery when the history shows your courts, congress and presidents did nothing but uphold it, endorse it and condone it for 85 years. Yet you want to lay it all squarely at the feet of the Confederacy.

 

[Boss]

If humans have inalienable rights, slavery was and is illegal, in the highest sense.

One would have to be 'high' to think otherwise.

The North did not invade the South. An uprising against the legal government was put down.

But that's the whole point here... Many of you want to view this as a moral sense of right and wrong that simply didn't exist in 1861 America. Sure, there were a courageous handful of people who fought fervently for abolition, it was FAR FROM a majority viewpoint in America. The highest court in the land had ruled that slaves were NOT PEOPLE! Do you not GET that part? ...The SCOTUS ruled they were PROPERTY! The South didn't make that decision... it wasn't their decision to make.

Now what you say here has some merit... Fredrick Douglass once loathed the US Constitution and founding fathers, but as he read the words he came to realize the brilliance of the document and how the founding fathers had established the framework for freedom within the very context of inalienable rights for all. They knew that one day, the issue would need to be addressed and they wrote the Constitution to embrace that when the time came. The first order was to be recognized as people and not property.

It's really easy to be a ******* dumb ass... you just stick your finger in your nose and repeat what other dumb asses say! You don't have to learn history or try to relate to people before your time. You can just pretend that things back then were just like today and the evil South was full of evil rich right-wing white people who wanted to keep poor black folks in chains. It's easy to believe this shit because it fits so well with your anti-right bigotry and prejudice against the South.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is viewing history in latter-day eyes to maintain that Perpetual Union did not apply, because the continuation represented by the Constitution was forgotten.

Many people did indeed view slavery as wrong in every sense. Great nations had already done away with it. Some states had always been without it.

The states that sought to secede did so because they foresaw the day that the entire country would become repulsed enough with the barbarity to formally reject it throughout the land. This legal resolution they could not abide, so they chose an illegal path that led to their ruin.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A complete explanation of how and why your silly remarks are wrong would be wasted on you, but somebody has to at least tell you that you are wrong, so ........YOU ARE WRONG.

I posit that more atrocities have taken place under the American flag than the Confederate flag

 

[there4eyeM]

And even more under the 'cross'.

 

[rcfieldz]

In 200 years or so, which flag will be seen as racist?