RebelKev Wrote:BTW, you forgot the other flag that was flown when all those people were killed:

Yes, enemies of America killed people who were flying that flag.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery

Quote: THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ---- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.

[/quote]

"free trade" vs. northern 'protectionism'...sounds familar..

smart man:

he'd be worth going to George Mason for...

GGniner Wrote:The Civil War wasn't about slavery

Quote: THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ---- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.

"free trade" vs. northern 'protectionism'...sounds familar..

smart man:

he'd be worth going to George Mason for...
[/quote]

I never said that the Civil War was about slavery, so why did you bring it up?

I compared Kev's position about people who speak for the rights of those who MAY have taken up arms against the US to his position about people who actively support and celebrate people who have ACTUALLY taken up arms against the United States. Furthermore, these same people celebrate a symbol that was and still is used by terrorists on American soil.

I find the contradiction to be rather interesting, that's all.

Do yourself a favor and read the thread for a second before posting stuff.

Oh, and by the way, you don't have to say, "and a Black guy wrote this, too".

Just sayin'.

Sophandros Wrote:I didn't claim that it was illegal to secede. You really like trying to put words in peoples' mouths and then using those words to start a straw man argument, don't you?

However, I don't think that people who take up arms against the United States of America should be celebrated, and I certainly don't think that a flag that was flown by terrorists should be celebrated.

First off, I don't think you even know what straw man argument is. I think it's something you heard and now use it when you can't make your own point.

Secondly, If you realize the southern states HAD the right to secede, to which forming their own country would be totally irrelevant to the United States, and in the same post call those people terrorists, then you really don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

look at the part in bold again and read it....any state had the RIGHT to seceed if they wanted to, it was in the constitution but when they tried it the North/Union went to war with them to stop them by force. The rest is history, it gave birth to big govt. in this country. the article gives a good summation of how we got to that point, government interference with economic liberties.

Soph, the Southerners wouldn't have taken up arms against the United States had they not been invaded.

Oh, and,

just sayin'.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:I didn't claim that it was illegal to secede. You really like trying to put words in peoples' mouths and then using those words to start a straw man argument, don't you?

However, I don't think that people who take up arms against the United States of America should be celebrated, and I certainly don't think that a flag that was flown by terrorists should be celebrated.

First off, I don't think you even know what straw man argument is. I think it's something you heard and now use it when you can't make your own point.

Secondly, If you realize the southern states HAD the right to secede, to which forming their own country would be totally irrelevant to the United States, and in the same post call those people terrorists, then you really don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

They took up arms against the United States, just as non-Americans are taking up arms against the United States. Do you celebrate Germany or Japan or North Korea? Why not? They fought against the United States, and they had every right to, just as the CSA did.

The terrorist comment is a reference to the manner in which the flag in question was used after the Civil War. I thought that you would get that, but apparently not.

It seems that you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

GGniner Wrote:look at the part in bold again and read it....any state had the RIGHT to seceed if they wanted to, it was in the constitution but when they tried it the North/Union went to war with them to stop them by force. The rest is history, it gave birth to big govt. in this country. the article gives a good summation of how we got to that point, government interference with economic liberties.

I never said that they didn't have the right to secede. The issue here is this: You guys enjoy celebrating one group of people who took up arms against America and killed Americans, yet you criticize those who want fair treatment for someone who is SUSPECTED of taking up arms against America.

Interesting double standard.

RebelKev Wrote:Soph, the Southerners wouldn't have taken up arms against the United States had they not been invaded.

Oh, and,

just sayin'.

The United States wouldn't have invaded if they didn't secede.

The point is, it doesn't matter WHY you take up arms against the United States. THEY DID IT. They fought and killed American soldiers. I don't consider people who kill American soldiers to be heroes.

Just sayin'. (let's make that the official end of post statement...)

Sophandros Wrote:They took up arms against the United States, just as non-Americans are taking up arms against the United States. Do you celebrate Germany or Japan or North Korea? Why not? They fought against the United States, and they had every right to, just as the CSA did.

The terrorist comment is a reference to the manner in which the flag in question was used after the Civil War. I thought that you would get that, but apparently not.

It seems that you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

Wow, just wow. For someone that doesn't know what a straw man argument is, you seem to be great at making them. The CSA took up arms against an invading country, the United States. If you can't see the difference between that war, and the references to Japan, Germany, or North Korea, then your ignorance of the topic makes this turn from a debate, to a history lesson. However, since you are happy in your ignorance, and only want to argue points that aren't there, there's not much left to discuss.

Sophandros Wrote:The United States wouldn't have invaded if they didn't secede.

The point is, it doesn't matter WHY you take up arms against the United States. THEY DID IT. They fought and killed American soldiers. I don't consider people who kill American soldiers to be heroes.

Ahh, so the United States invaded the Southern States because they seceded? Something that was Constitutional before secession? And you call the CSA terrorists.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:They took up arms against the United States, just as non-Americans are taking up arms against the United States. Do you celebrate Germany or Japan or North Korea? Why not? They fought against the United States, and they had every right to, just as the CSA did.

The terrorist comment is a reference to the manner in which the flag in question was used after the Civil War. I thought that you would get that, but apparently not.

It seems that you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

Wow, just wow. For someone that doesn't know what a straw man argument is, you seem to be great at making them. The CSA took up arms against an invading country, the United States. If you can't see the difference between that war, and the references to Japan, Germany, or North Korea, then your ignorance of the topic makes this turn from a debate, to a history lesson. However, since you are happy in your ignorance, and only want to argue points that aren't there, there's not much left to discuss.

[/quote]

I didn't make a straw man argument. I made a comparison.

Killing American soldiers is killing American soldiers, no matter how you want to justify it. I'm sure that the people in Gitmo believe that their attacks on Americans are a response to our invading their country or meddling in their affairs.

Again, the point is this: If you attack and kill Americans, you're not a hero.

Sophandros Wrote:I didn't make a straw man argument. I made a comparison.

Killing American soldiers is killing American soldiers, no matter how you want to justify it. I'm sure that the people in Gitmo believe that their attacks on Americans are a response to our invading their country or meddling in their affairs.

Again, the point is this: If you attack and kill Americans, you're not a hero.

The people of the CSA were Americans, so I agree. Those invaders of the south were, by far, heroic.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:The United States wouldn't have invaded if they didn't secede.

The point is, it doesn't matter WHY you take up arms against the United States. THEY DID IT. They fought and killed American soldiers. I don't consider people who kill American soldiers to be heroes.

Ahh, so the United States invaded the Southern States because they seceded? Something that was Constitutional before secession? And you call the CSA terrorists.

No, Kev, I called the people who used the Confederate flag after the Civil War terrorists. For someone who claims to know history, you're doing quite poorly here.

And again, my issue is not with the secession. It's with your celebration of people who killed Americans while at the same time you condemn those who merely ask that someone who is suspected of attacking Americans be treated with fairness. Seems quite contradictory to me.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:I didn't make a straw man argument. I made a comparison.

Killing American soldiers is killing American soldiers, no matter how you want to justify it. I'm sure that the people in Gitmo believe that their attacks on Americans are a response to our invading their country or meddling in their affairs.

Again, the point is this: If you attack and kill Americans, you're not a hero.

The people of the CSA were Americans, so I agree. Those invaders of the south were, by far, heroic.

If the CSA is a different country, then they are not Americans (if we take "American" to mean a citizen of the United States of America).

Sophandros Wrote:Again, the point is this: If you attack and kill Americans, you're not a hero.

What about if you kill non-Americans on American soil? Can you be a hero then?

As a side note, how do you pick who is heroic when you have Americans fighting Americans?

Sophandros Wrote:No, Kev, I called the people who used the Confederate flag after the Civil War terrorists. For someone who claims to know history, you're doing quite poorly here.

And again, my issue is not with the secession. It's with your celebration of people who killed Americans while at the same time you condemn those who merely ask that someone who is suspected of attacking Americans be treated with fairness. Seems quite contradictory to me.

There were Americans on BOTH sides of that war. As for those who flew it afterwards, who? Who are terrorists for flying it? Regular people who celebrate their heritage? I thought heritage was ok with you, or is it just black heritage, to which many black people served in the CSA. So who is it, Soph? The Klan? If it's the Klan, hell yeah I think they're a bunch of damn terrorists, however, when "I" see on of these klan rallies on TV, and mainly up North and in the West, they're also flying the US Flag. So who? Who are you referring to?

BTW, are the Black Panthers terrorists? Or does their blackness prevent them from being terrorists because anytime one takes it to "whitey" it's justified?

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:No, Kev, I called the people who used the Confederate flag after the Civil War terrorists. For someone who claims to know history, you're doing quite poorly here.

And again, my issue is not with the secession. It's with your celebration of people who killed Americans while at the same time you condemn those who merely ask that someone who is suspected of attacking Americans be treated with fairness. Seems quite contradictory to me.

There were Americans on BOTH sides of that war. As for those who flew it afterwards, who? Who are terrorists for flying it? Regular people who celebrate their heritage? I thought heritage was ok with you, or is it just black heritage, to which many black people served in the CSA. So who is it, Soph? The Klan? If it's the Klan, hell yeah I think they're a bunch of damn terrorists, however, when "I" see on of these klan rallies on TV, and mainly up North and in the West, they're also flying the US Flag. So who? Who are you referring to?

BTW, are the Black Panthers terrorists? Or does their blackness prevent them from being terrorists because anytime one takes it to "whitey" it's justified?

The people who flew the flag, both klan and non-klan, who used it to intimidate people, whether before, during, after, or in threat of a lynching or other murder are terrorists. Glad we can agree on that.

Regarding the Panthers, again, any group that uses intimadation, violence, and threats of violence against innocent people is a terrorist group.

It should be noted that the reason that people are opposed to that flag is for THAT, not the Civil War. For some reason, people don't want to realize that, just as they don't realize or refuse to acknowledge that the reason that many southern capitals flew the confederate flag or incorporated it into their state flags was NOT a celebration of heritage; rather, it was in defiance of integration. The flag that was born during the Civil War was twisted and bastardized by hateful people during the end of the 19th and the first part of the 20th century. It is for that reason that people oppose it.

I understand that you and others are willing to ignore how the meaning of that flag was changed, but the fact of the matter is that it's most recent uses is what it means to most people.

In my opinion, that flag belongs in a museum, with the rest of the Civil War.

quick summation

1) CSA were not 'terrorist', they had no desire to take over the Union through force and then impose their will on the northern states, they simply wanted to seceed as they had a right to do.

2) international islamic terrorist, much like the Nazi's and imperial Japan and the Soviet Union, are Totalitarians trying to take over the world and kill/behead those that don't bow down to allah and Sharia Law.

the differences are night and day

The American flag flew for a longer period of time than the flag of the CSA. Should it be in a museum as well? How about the two slave-holding states that stayed with the North during the Civil War that didn't see their slaves freed until 1866, a year AFTER the ending of the Civil War? How about the many black people killed by William Tecumseh Sherman on his march to the sea, while flying the United States flag? How about the US-flagged ships that transported slaves at the time?

What about that one, Soph?