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

[bripat9643]

India was part of England?
Never mind...
Fare ye well.

It was part of the British Empire, every bit as much as America was.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Now you will be accused of supporting slavery. It's what they do.

 

[paperview]

 

[RKMBrown]

Confederates were dimocrat slavers!

Confederates were awesome patriots who dared defend their rights!

Dude you need to brush your teeth.

 

[danielpalos]

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)

I believe the left should have "harassed the Right" until the right found a cracker to "harass a Judge" for his Cause instead of waging war on the North, in that alternative.

 

[Political Junky]

Yes, Confederates were Conservatives, therefore today's Conservatives agree with the South.

 

[paperview]

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)

I believe the left should have "harassed the Right" until the right found a cracker to "harass a Judge" for his Cause instead of waging war on the North, in that alternative.

Oh good fucking grief. You're here too.

Spam botting that stupid "harassing a judge" bullshit all over the freakin place.

 

[bripat9643]

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)

I believe the left should have "harassed the Right" until the right found a cracker to "harass a Judge" for his Cause instead of waging war on the North, in that alternative.

When did the South ever wage war on the North?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I wasn't aware the Constitution outlined and and granted rights. Last time I checked, it's all about granting limited powers to government, and setting boundaries on them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Also fairly hypocritical for a nation that had just gotten done seceding from its political attachment to another nation because it decided the government wasn't respecting its rights.

Let's see if this quote and viewpoint ring bells with anyone:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . ."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.....

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So the colonies should have remained part of the British Empire forever, by that logic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Yeah, because clear proof that someone is mistaken has such a good track record of shutting them up on this message board.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So by that logic, if the South HAD won, Thanatos would be in here today telling us how legal and virtuous secession is, based simply on the fact that it worked.

 

[thanatos144]

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?

No because there will always be neoconfederates like Bri who have romantic delusions on what really happened.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

The Term NOT delegated to the US dummy that means you would still have to be part of the US for the constitutional protections you are demanding....You can not have you cake and eat it to

 

[thanatos144]

Yes, Confederates were Conservatives, therefore today's Conservatives agree with the South.

No they weren't they were democrats.

 

[thanatos144]

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)

I believe the left should have "harassed the Right" until the right found a cracker to "harass a Judge" for his Cause instead of waging war on the North, in that alternative.

When did the South ever wage war on the North?

This was pointed out to you several times in this thread you fucking inbred idiot.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

I wasn't aware the Constitution outlined and and granted rights. Last time I checked, it's all about granting limited powers to government, and setting boundaries on them.

Okay then where is the phrase in the constitution that the US government has to let a state secede?

 

[thanatos144]

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.

So by that logic, if the South HAD won, Thanatos would be in here today telling us how legal and virtuous secession is, based simply on the fact that it worked.

The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.