Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[JoeMoma]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

 

[thanatos144]

Confederates were dimocrat slavers!

Confederates were awesome patriots who dared defend their rights!

Self pics are another thread

 

[thanatos144]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

 

[JoeMoma]

Please provide evidence that the rebels invaded the North.

The South started the war when it fired on Federal troops. Arguably even earlier when it fired upon an American vessel leased to the Federal government coming to resupply the United State's Fort Sumter.

Having cannons fired on your troops generally is recognized as starting a fight.

Assuming that a state does succeed, would it not hold claim to any forts that are within its boundaries? There is more than one side to that story.

No since rebelling doesn't make you your own country.

That's what king George said.

And when he lost and was proved wrong.

So it's all about might, not about right and wrong.

 

[thanatos144]

The South started the war when it fired on Federal troops. Arguably even earlier when it fired upon an American vessel leased to the Federal government coming to resupply the United State's Fort Sumter.

Having cannons fired on your troops generally is recognized as starting a fight.

Assuming that a state does succeed, would it not hold claim to any forts that are within its boundaries? There is more than one side to that story.

No since rebelling doesn't make you your own country.

That's what king George said.

And when he lost and was proved wrong.

So it's all about might, not about right and wrong.

How is keeping your word wrong?????

 

[JoeMoma]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

And what word are they breaking?

A guess Russia is right to take back and reform the old soviet Union. Once in -- always in!

 

[thanatos144]

Is it just me or do libertarians seem to hate the idea of living up to your word?

 

[thanatos144]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

And what word are they breaking?

A guess Russia is right to take back and reform the old soviet Union. Once in -- always in!

The word they gave to be a part of the USA.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

Why would anyone bring up the Civil War in a gay marriage thread? Don't they know what 'little drummer boys' were used for?

 

[JoeMoma]

Assuming that a state does succeed, would it not hold claim to any forts that are within its boundaries? There is more than one side to that story.

No since rebelling doesn't make you your own country.

That's what king George said.

And when he lost and was proved wrong.

So it's all about might, not about right and wrong.

How is keeping your word wrong?????

The constitution does not say that states cannot succeed. No word is being broken.

 

[JoeMoma]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

And what word are they breaking?

A guess Russia is right to take back and reform the old soviet Union. Once in -- always in!

The word they gave to be a part of the USA.

Point me to specific documentation where any of the states agreed to remain in the union forever pre civil war.

 

[there4eyeM]

No since rebelling doesn't make you your own country.

That's what king George said.

And when he lost and was proved wrong.

So it's all about might, not about right and wrong.

How is keeping your word wrong?????

The constitution does not say that states cannot succeed. No word is being broken.

You should probably look back in this thread to catch up. What had largely been debated is whether or not secession was legal. If it were all that clear, don't you think the discussion would have ended a very long time ago?

 

[JoeMoma]

That's what king George said.

And when he lost and was proved wrong.

So it's all about might, not about right and wrong.

How is keeping your word wrong?????

The constitution does not say that states cannot succeed. No word is being broken.

You should probably look back in this thread to catch up. What had largely been debated is whether or not secession was legal. If it were all that clear, don't you think the discussion would have ended a very long time ago?

Yes, it is clear. It's like being a member of a gang like the Hell's Angels. If a member wants out, the only way out is to die. The rest of the gang will either force you to stay in, or kill you.

 

[bripat9643]

The prejudice , assumptions and childish name calling of some posters is so glaring that even they should see it. For example, nowhere has this poster extolled the virtues of Lincoln nor stated that secession was clearly illegal (or legal). Statements have been made and questions posed trying to put the discussion in perspective. Most responding posters have interpreted these in that way.
I will state here that the crime of slavery is so heinous that little can be imagined to exceed it. Whatever it took to end it, and whoever suffered what as a result of having practiced it, is like the rapist; whatever happens to him he brought upon himself.
Just as in the world there are many 'evils' and 'causes' to go to war such as religion, oil, simple power, these would never convince me to 'take up arms'. But if there were a serious battle to free my sisters worldwide, once and for all from the awful oppression they have suffered for centuries, millennia, you might have a soldier here.

In other words, you don't care what the law or the Constitution says.

Got it.

Tell us why anyone should waste his time discussing the issue with you?

You apparently dont care what the constitution says. There is no right to secession in the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't mention secession, so how can anyone claim it isn't permitted? The theory that everything not expressly permitted is denied is the logic of morons.

You can say it isn't permitted because it is called rebellion and that is treason and yes before you spout out more stupidity our founding fathers were traitors to the crown. .

It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.

The Major difference being the founders won their rebellion. They won it because they were worthy. Not just strength won the revolutionary war but ideals of liberty and freedom because it garnered the Frenches help which without them we wouldn't have a country today. The confederates didn't have that morel ground to stand on. You cant scream you are for freedom and then rebel to expand slave economics. The founders one great weakness was allowing the slavery to exist after we were founded. Lincoln fixed that with the cray baby help of the south. They started a war and gave him the opportunity to emancipate them......

So winning makes it right? It's hard to believe that an adult is stupid and unscrupulous to utter such nonsense. The Founders were no more "worth" than the leaders of the Confederacy. Their ideals were virtually identical. The French helped because England was Frances enemy. That doesn't provide the slightest sliver of "moral ground."

Bottom line: You're an ignominious weasel.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah another thread with morons screaming you can't leave na na na na na..

Yeah gratz on killing millions to prove that no one is allowed to leave unless we say they are allowed to leave.

Then why did the rebels kill so many?

Why did the rebels kill the murderers who came south to slaughter their families? Uhmmm... self defense?

Considering the rebels started the fighting you would be wrong.

Please provide evidence that the rebels invaded the North.

They attacked union troops over and over before and after Lincoln was president those are acts of war.

They attacked union troops only once, and that was not an act of war. Those troops were trespassing.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wait, they were 'states of the union' or not?

 

[JoeMoma]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since succession is not addressed by the constitution, then it should be up to individual states to decide.

And, yes I know that the USSC has ruled differently since the civil war. But that's proof that sometimes the Supreme Court makes stuff up that is not in the constitution.

Also, if a state decides to succeed, why should they care what the Supreme Court thinks anymore. That state is declaring itself free from the U.S. and no longer bound by its laws or court rulings.

 

[bripat9643]

'(response to 'Joe's' above)

Is that how you read "Perpetual Union"? Can you think of or name a country that has ever allowed what was part of it to just dissociate itself?

Yep, The Soviet Union did exactly that, and Malaysia allowed Singapore to become a separate country. Britain allowed India, Australia, South Africa and numerous other countries to go their own way.

The original understanding of the Union was that it was forever.

There was no such understanding. It certainly wasn't in writing.

The doubt comes in when the new constitution was approved. Nothing clearly abrogated the original intention, but neither was it clearly re-stated that to be the case. That is the excuse for saying secession was legal. To be generous, it is not clear.

What "original intention?"

That the intolerable condition of slavery was essentially protected and prolonged by potential secession, not to mention the destruction of the US as a potent world presence, other important arguments weigh in.

Gibberish.

 

[bripat9643]

And when he lost and was proved wrong.

So it's all about might, not about right and wrong.

How is keeping your word wrong?????

The constitution does not say that states cannot succeed. No word is being broken.

You should probably look back in this thread to catch up. What had largely been debated is whether or not secession was legal. If it were all that clear, don't you think the discussion would have ended a very long time ago?

Yes, it is clear. It's like being a member of a gang like the Hell's Angels. If a member wants out, the only way out is to die. The rest of the gang will either force you to stay in, or kill you.

I compare it to being married to an abusive husband who said he had to murder his wife because she said she wanted to leave.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am not saying that succession is a good idea. Succession to keep slavery was definitely a bad idea. However, if the people of a state vote for a state to succeed, it is tyranny for that state to be forced to stay against the will of its people.