The Flag of Treason

[bripat9643]

That's the might makes right, theory.

Yes, I suppose so

but it does not change the fact that the South lost a war and was devastated in the process.

No one is arguing that it wasn't.

 

[satrebil]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

That 'property' was the state of South Carolina's; the fEds were allowed to use it. It reverted back to the state when it seceded, an act that was not illegal, and refusing to vacate it and then trying to use it to blockade the port was an act of war, by anybody's definition. Lincoln knew the response Buchanan got when he tried the same thing a few months earlier; Lincoln wanted to provoke a war and knew what the response to blockading the harbor would be.

That is NOT how it works. The land was permanently turned into Government land.

 

[9thIDdoc]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Yes. The right to have humans as chattels. No better cause around.

I also had family that fought for the North. And you know nothing about why anyone fought and no right to presume.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

That 'property' was the state of South Carolina's; the fEds were allowed to use it. It reverted back to the state when it seceded, an act that was not illegal, and refusing to vacate it and then trying to use it to blockade the port was an act of war, by anybody's definition. Lincoln knew the response Buchanan got when he tried the same thing a few months earlier; Lincoln wanted to provoke a war and knew what the response to blockading the harbor would be.

Any time somebody can cite in the Constitution where it was illegal to secede, and the Federal govt. was granted the power to use military force against a state, feel free to post it. All we know for a fact is that power was specifically denied to the Federal govt. at the 1787 Convention, as per Madison's argument that resulted in just a such a clause being dropped from the schedule.

Once again for the slow just like abortion is IMPLIED so is the need to get permission to leave the Union and the Supreme Court affirmed it.

 

[satrebil]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

That 'property' was the state of South Carolina's; the fEds were allowed to use it. It reverted back to the state when it seceded, an act that was not illegal, and refusing to vacate it and then trying to use it to blockade the port was an act of war, by anybody's definition. Lincoln knew the response Buchanan got when he tried the same thing a few months earlier; Lincoln wanted to provoke a war and knew what the response to blockading the harbor would be.

Any time somebody can cite in the Constitution where it was illegal to secede, and the Federal govt. was granted the power to use military force against a state, feel free to post it. All we know for a fact is that power was specifically denied to the Federal govt. at the 1787 Convention, as per Madison's argument that resulted in just a such a clause being dropped from the schedule.

Once again for the slow just like abortion is IMPLIED so is the need to get permission to leave the Union and the Supreme Court affirmed it.

Did we need permission to leave the British empire?

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

That 'property' was the state of South Carolina's; the fEds were allowed to use it. It reverted back to the state when it seceded, an act that was not illegal, and refusing to vacate it and then trying to use it to blockade the port was an act of war, by anybody's definition. Lincoln knew the response Buchanan got when he tried the same thing a few months earlier; Lincoln wanted to provoke a war and knew what the response to blockading the harbor would be.

Any time somebody can cite in the Constitution where it was illegal to secede, and the Federal govt. was granted the power to use military force against a state, feel free to post it. All we know for a fact is that power was specifically denied to the Federal govt. at the 1787 Convention, as per Madison's argument that resulted in just a such a clause being dropped from the schedule.

Once again for the slow just like abortion is IMPLIED so is the need to get permission to leave the Union and the Supreme Court affirmed it.

Where is it implied?

Abortion isn't implied either. That's a leftwing myth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

Wrong, turd, the federal government cannot treat the property of Ft Sumter differnt than it can treat the property of any other state. The federal government cannot just nullify state laws.

Your claim is 100% bullshit.

LOL a State has NO authority on Federal land EXCEPT what the Federal Government cedes to it. Try this dumb ass if a Military member commits a crime on federal property Federal NOT state authorities have jurisdiction and a Military Court determines the punishment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Only IF they can enforce it. Thats how the real world works dumb ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There was no justification for invading the South, secession or not.

The North did not see it that way

when two side have entrenched and inflexible positions that usually leads to war

again, the South lost the war, so in hindsight going to war was not the smart thing to do

neither was firing on ft sumter

almost anything else would have been better

That's the "might makes right" theory of justice.

Most Northerners didn't support any war until the Confederacy made it clear it wouldn't be paying tariffs to the federal government. The fact that both were entrenched doesn't mean they were both right. We're not arguing here about whether firing on Ft Sumter was "smart." We're arguing whether it was legally justified, and it was.

Lincoln committed treason when he invaded Virginia. Period.

Ya except for that pesky constitution which cedes the right to the Federal Government to wage war on insurrectionists and rebels.

 

[9thIDdoc]

There was State government and the primary reason for secession was violation of those State's rights. And the Confederacy was also elected government. We are in disagreement as to which government applied.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Past cases in the US before the civil war affirm the Federal Government had the right and authority to put down insurrection. Hell President Washington personally lead the army against one bunch.

 

[9thIDdoc]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

That 'property' was the state of South Carolina's; the fEds were allowed to use it. It reverted back to the state when it seceded, an act that was not illegal, and refusing to vacate it and then trying to use it to blockade the port was an act of war, by anybody's definition. Lincoln knew the response Buchanan got when he tried the same thing a few months earlier; Lincoln wanted to provoke a war and knew what the response to blockading the harbor would be.

Any time somebody can cite in the Constitution where it was illegal to secede, and the Federal govt. was granted the power to use military force against a state, feel free to post it. All we know for a fact is that power was specifically denied to the Federal govt. at the 1787 Convention, as per Madison's argument that resulted in just a such a clause being dropped from the schedule.

Once again for the slow just like abortion is IMPLIED so is the need to get permission to leave the Union and the Supreme Court affirmed it.

After the fact and so meaningless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

That 'property' was the state of South Carolina's; the fEds were allowed to use it. It reverted back to the state when it seceded, an act that was not illegal, and refusing to vacate it and then trying to use it to blockade the port was an act of war, by anybody's definition. Lincoln knew the response Buchanan got when he tried the same thing a few months earlier; Lincoln wanted to provoke a war and knew what the response to blockading the harbor would be.

Any time somebody can cite in the Constitution where it was illegal to secede, and the Federal govt. was granted the power to use military force against a state, feel free to post it. All we know for a fact is that power was specifically denied to the Federal govt. at the 1787 Convention, as per Madison's argument that resulted in just a such a clause being dropped from the schedule.

Once again for the slow just like abortion is IMPLIED so is the need to get permission to leave the Union and the Supreme Court affirmed it.

After the fact and so meaningless.

LOL the right and authority of the US Government as granted by the Constitution to stop insurrection is not after the fact.

 

[rightwinger]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

What's the difference between Confederate Flag, Black Power Flag, or an Antifa Flag? Nothing. Freedom of expression is firmly ensconced in First Amendment.

Whats the difference?

Neither Black Power or Antifa declared war on the United States or enslaved 4 million people

 

[rightwinger]

One is the flag of an army which waged war on the USA?

Wrong

the North invade the South

Tell the people of Gettysburg

 

[rightwinger]

The state ceded the property to the federal government.

In perpetuity.

Unimportant. All property is owned in perpetuity until the owner sells it or gives it away.

That "perpetual union" argument is, without doubt, one of the stupidest justifications imaginable, particularly given the EXTREME pains the founders went through in drafting the Constitution to ensure that STATES maintained their sovereignty.

Complete BULLSHIT!!

States did not maintain their sovereignty.

There are no provisions in the Constitution for breaking up the United States. It is a very complicated process

 

[9thIDdoc]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

Wrong, turd, the federal government cannot treat the property of Ft Sumter differnt than it can treat the property of any other state. The federal government cannot just nullify state laws.

Your claim is 100% bullshit.

LOL a State has NO authority on Federal land EXCEPT what the Federal Government cedes to it. Try this dumb ass if a Military member commits a crime on federal property Federal NOT state authorities have jurisdiction and a Military Court determines the punishment.

That was a Federal claim at the time and one of the things that was thought to be a violation of States' rights. After secession the CSA was the federal government of SC.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wasn't an act of war, nimrod. Ft Sumter was SC territory. Firing on your own territory is not an act of war, period.

Title had passed to the US government.

"Title" means it's just a piece of property. Walmart is not a separate country. It's part of the state where I live. It has the same exact kind of "title" to the property it sits on as the federal government had with respect to Ft Sumter. It's part of South Carolina. Of course you will idiotically continue to post this already debunked claim because otherwise you will have to admit that the federal government made war on the State of South Carolina.

Actually RETARD the US Government is different then the State and while it may allow some state laws to be enforced reserves the right to make it that FEDERAL law applies to that property, go ahead and go to a US Base and READ the sign posted before you enter.

Wrong, turd, the federal government cannot treat the property of Ft Sumter differnt than it can treat the property of any other state. The federal government cannot just nullify state laws.

Your claim is 100% bullshit.

LOL a State has NO authority on Federal land EXCEPT what the Federal Government cedes to it. Try this dumb ass if a Military member commits a crime on federal property Federal NOT state authorities have jurisdiction and a Military Court determines the punishment.

That was a Federal claim at the time and one of the things that was thought to be a violation of States' rights. After secession the CSA was the federal government of SC.

Wrong the Constitution is clear the President and Congress CAN declare martial law and order troops to put down insurrection. If as you claim anyone at any time can simply declare they are no longer part of the US then there would be NO such clause as it would be meaningless.

 

[Mac-7]

No one is arguing that it wasn't.

Ok