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

[bripat9643]

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

That gives the president the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors.

What a numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

so you're a moral relativist now?
those people chose to take up arms against their nation in defense of slavery. that does not make them patriots as the op would like us to believe. it makes them traitors.

Hey dumb ass, slavery was legal when the war started and there were no official moves to outlaw it at the time. In fact Lincoln said he was willing to continue to allow it if the south rejoined the union. Economics and an overbearing federal government started the war, slavery was a side issue at the time. Maybe you should learn real history instead of the leftist revisionist bullshit you seem to be buying into.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

shut up

It's astounding that any of these nutcases maintain the idiocy of denying the confederacy was all about slavery in the face of each of the states outwardly admitting as much.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves, numskull. He said so himself. That means the war wasn't about slavery.

I never said Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. He fought the war to save the United States from breaking apart.

The south fought the war to keep their slaves.

Wrong. They fought the war to defend their homes from Lincoln. Lincoln invaded the Confederate states, not the other way around.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

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

You're babbling incoherently now.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

By "saving the union" Lincoln meant imposing Northern hegemony on the Southern states.

 

[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.

You're babbling incoherently now.

That's all you've got, traitor wannabe?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when the Constitution was adopted. Any other claims are pure fantasy.

 

[Wildman]

isn't this just jolly ? the liberscum say this is the flag of the KKK..., WRONG !!

hey there liberfools, try to rewrite this....., if you can.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Constitution, being created "in order to form a more perfect (Perpetual) Union", was absolutely a continuation of the original country. Language and logic testify. Further, nothing and no one ever rescinded that Union. It is merely a convenient fiction for secessionist propaganda to maintain that somehow their commitment to their nation had legally changed.
The overwhelming desire to maintain an economic system that totally exploited fellow human beings led to a failed rebellion. Nostalgia for such a thing is unthinkable to anyone reasonable.

 

[Boss]

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.

Show me any nation or state at the time who had substantial agricultural need for labor, who had taken the moral high ground and outlawed slavery. Dollars to donuts, you can't cite a single solitary example because one doesn't exit. Slavery had only been outlawed in places where no slaves were needed.

Now... for 85 years, your US government condoned slavery, upheld the institution, failed to outlaw it, ruled slaves to be legitimately owned property and allowed the Southern plantation owner to acquire over a billion dollars worth of slaves for the purpose of harvesting cotton, tobacco and sugar cane.. all of which the North benefited from greatly. What the Southern states could not abide was a two-faced Federal government who was poised to take their property without compensation... in direct violation of their own 4th Amendment and 85 years worth of case law.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Show me any nation or state at the time who had substantial agricultural need for labor, who had taken the moral high ground and outlawed slavery. Dollars to donuts, you can't cite a single solitary example because one doesn't exit. Slavery had only been outlawed in places where no slaves were needed.

Now... for 85 years, your US government condoned slavery, upheld the institution, failed to outlaw it, ruled slaves to be legitimately owned property and allowed the Southern plantation owner to acquire over a billion dollars worth of slaves for the purpose of harvesting cotton, tobacco and sugar cane.. all of which the North benefited from greatly. What the Southern states could not abide was a two-faced Federal government who was poised to take their property without compensation... in direct violation of their own 4th Amendment and 85 years worth of case law.

 

[Boss]

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

It is MY hope that in 200 years, we will have evolved enough that we no longer discuss race or racism. That at some point in the timeline, we will have reached the realization that we're all part of the human race and distinctions based on skin pigmentation are highly irrelevant and meaningless. That the vast majority will come to realize how race has been used to keep us divided and pitted against one another so one particular political party could remain viable over another. And that we will have discovered it is really stupid to try and shove your history in the closet so you can continue to live in denial and blame your past mistakes on others.

Of course, that is asking a lot of history but I am an optimist.

 

[Boss]

The Constitution, being created "in order to form a more perfect (Perpetual) Union", was absolutely a continuation of the original country. Language and logic testify. Further, nothing and no one ever rescinded that Union. It is merely a convenient fiction for secessionist propaganda to maintain that somehow their commitment to their nation had legally changed.
The overwhelming desire to maintain an economic system that totally exploited fellow human beings led to a failed rebellion. Nostalgia for such a thing is unthinkable to anyone reasonable.

Again, from a purely logical perspective... IF there is no possibility a union can ever be dissolved once it is made, then it's not a union, it is imprisonment by force. A union is when you and I agree to join together... not when you consume me and destroy my identity.

On the issue of "legality" it really doesn't matter... it's academic. Once was the time you could "legally" beat your wife to death. You've probably heard the phrase "rule of thumb" but do you know where that originated? It was the given method by which you selected the stick to beat your wife... (couldn't be wider than your thumb.)

Yes, it was actually more than 85 years worth of desire to consider slaves as property and not human beings, upheld by the US Congress and SCOTUS along with every president up to Lincoln which led to a rebellion by those who did not believe the Federal government had the right to seize their property under their own constitution. The CSA wasn't who legalized slavery or upheld it for 85 years, nor were they responsible for repeated SCOTUS rulings that slaves were not human beings with rights but rather property owned by plantation owners.

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. It is history and a certain segment of society wants to erase it and pretend something else was the case. I can't say that I know WHY you personally want to do this.... maybe it's to remain in denial of your horrid past and what your forefathers actually did? Maybe it's to scapegoat the issue of slavery onto the South so that you don't have to share any blame for it? Or maybe it's just a simple minded attempt to try and connect slavery to modern day red-state conservatives because you dislike their policies? Whatever your reasoning, it is fundamentally wrong and it won't be allowed to stand.

 

[there4eyeM]

Were the pyramids constructed by slaves? There is no proof of such a thing.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is totally inexplicable is why anyone with any human feeling would have any regret that a system as odious as that exemplified by the antebellum South was eliminated from a free nation's existence.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...all men are created equal..."

 

[Faun]

Hey dumb ass, slavery was legal when the war started and there were no official moves to outlaw it at the time. In fact Lincoln said he was willing to continue to allow it if the south rejoined the union. Economics and an overbearing federal government started the war, slavery was a side issue at the time. Maybe you should learn real history instead of the leftist revisionist bullshit you seem to be buying into.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

shut up

It's astounding that any of these nutcases maintain the idiocy of denying the confederacy was all about slavery in the face of each of the states outwardly admitting as much.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves, numskull. He said so himself. That means the war wasn't about slavery.

I never said Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. He fought the war to save the United States from breaking apart.

The south fought the war to keep their slaves.

Wrong. They fought the war to defend their homes from Lincoln. Lincoln invaded the Confederate states, not the other way around.

Too bad for your hallucinations, history does not agree with your delusions. The south started the war when they attacked a federal fort.

 

[Faun]

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.

Show me any nation or state at the time who had substantial agricultural need for labor, who had taken the moral high ground and outlawed slavery. Dollars to donuts, you can't cite a single solitary example because one doesn't exit. Slavery had only been outlawed in places where no slaves were needed.

Now... for 85 years, your US government condoned slavery, upheld the institution, failed to outlaw it, ruled slaves to be legitimately owned property and allowed the Southern plantation owner to acquire over a billion dollars worth of slaves for the purpose of harvesting cotton, tobacco and sugar cane.. all of which the North benefited from greatly. What the Southern states could not abide was a two-faced Federal government who was poised to take their property without compensation... in direct violation of their own 4th Amendment and 85 years worth of case law.

WTF are you talking about? What slaves built the pyramids?

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

====================
The civil war was fought to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was about one issue abolishing slavery in the confederate states. It was the first step of a journey that is not over.
People like you were the ones who argued against the first step and probably every step since. Your blabbing above is no more than cerebral vomit.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

====================
The civil war was fought to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was about one issue abolishing slavery in the confederate states. It was the first step of a journey that is not over.
People like you were the ones who argued against the first step and probably every step since. Your blabbing above is no more than cerebral vomit.

The Civil War began two years before the Emancipation Proclamation

 

[ElmerMudd]

Were the pyramids constructed by slaves? There is no proof of such a thing.

=============
No Rush Limbaugh built the pyramids; ask the Tea Party.
Part of the right's revisionist history.