It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I know, nobody is banning any flag......

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 07:18 PM

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
It's the separation of church & state...should be pretty obvious. We actually devoted our constitution to that premise. A grand democratic experiment.a reply to: ketsuko

And of no more import than cities named St. Louis or San Francisco which are also religious references.

posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 07:28 PM

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

They are street names for god's sake. Doesn't matter what you name them, it's not erasing history.

At what point would you look at this and say "hey, I think they may really be trying to remove history"?

When they actually do something to remove or change history as we know it.

Changing the name of a street does none of that.

It's the name of a street...let that sink in. It's the name of a damn street.

So by your logic then lets change every street name like Martin Luther King BLVD I mean it is just a name after all, i'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms about that, yourself included.

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:30 PM
a reply to: network dude

there is a saying I think it appropriate, "you ain't from around here are ya?"

Not quite sure where it is that you think I am 'from', but I can admit to you that my family boasts several highly influential abolitionists. That is not so surprising really, there were lots of abolitionists and the whole 6 degrees of separation thing, but in my case I am actually directly descended. Sadly, my family also mourns the deaths of an entire family of relatives at the hands of terrorists from Kentucky bent on kidnapping black Illinois citizens and raping and murdering anybody who got in their way.

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:36 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: network dude

You're fighting a losing battle.

I've debated with rnaa before. He knows more about history that those whose family lived it; he knows more about electricity than electrical engineers; he and he alone decides who is "traitorous" and who is not; he knows more about everything than anyone else. Or so he thinks, and woe unto anyone who has information that contradicts his view.

That's why I dismissed him earlier. Just a heads-up.


You would have a lot more success with your arguments if you would just take the time to back up your assertions with evidence.

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:00 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rnaa

And back in the day, I have no doubt you would have advocated for mass genocide in the South too. After all, surely every citizen of those states who did not attempt to run north was traitor guilty of treason, yes?

Please don't insult me because you don't read my answers.

Did you not read the documentation I provided that explained exactly why that did not happen, could not have happened? We had to rebuild the country again after the war. You don't do that by exterminating every one on the losing side. Where has this idea crept into consciousness? The fact that treason was pardoned does not make it any-the-less treason. What it does is allow wounds to heal and people to get back to their lives.

I fail to see how changing the names of things erases anything. They've been there for over 100 years, and sadly, too many have no real clue who many of them are or why they are there. But I suppose that's your aim to completely erase something whose shame you cannot bear because it offends you, so you'd rather forget it than remember that it happened.

The reason you fail to see how it erases anything is because it doesn't erase anything. Nobody is trying to erase anything.

What I am trying to do is to stop honoring dishonorable men. People forget, and certainly there are those on this thread who continue to deny that the rebellion was treason 'because they did what they thought was right'. What traitor doesn't do what he thinks is right? Does that make them any less a traitor? Is Benedict Arnold not a traitor these days because he did what he thought was right? Where is his statue? hint

Robert E. Lee committed treason. He is not worthy of a statue in his honor in a public place. He just isn't. It is as simple as that. Removing a statue doesn't erase him from history anymore than honoring Arnold's broken leg removes him from history.

Please make an effort to understand what I am saying here before insulting me again.

edit on 10/7/2017 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/7/2017 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:05 PM
It's their neighborhood, let them name the streets what they want. Who are you, the street naming police? Should people who don't even live in the area dictate what they should name their streets? We need less outside governing from far away places and let the local people decide what is best for themselves.

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 03:55 PM
a reply to: Irishhaf

The reason that it was done that way was to prevent a backlash that could have restarted the war.

That was the primary, most important reason for all the actions taken by Grant, the other army officers and President Johnson, to begin healing the wounds of the war.

In retrospect, it was the right call by the people living the times. Easy for us, well over a century later, to criticize the actions, as we have the benefit of hindsight. In hindsight, it was the right thing to do.

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 04:00 PM
a reply to: seagull

Oh I agree they made the right call, no doubt about it.

Also read somewhere that Davis was a pretty good speaker with a solid grasp on the constitution and they did not want to give him a platform to talk about the legal reasons behind the secession.

But If someone wants to make statements of fact (they were all traitors) but cannot provide a single factual case of a treason conviction from the civil war I am going to call him on it.

Yes there were some civilians that were effectively acting as spies that were tried, convicted and executed, but there were few beyond the radicals in the north that felt at that time the southern soldiers were traitors.

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: Irishhaf

Yes, several spies were later put on trial and hung.

The vast majority, both north and south, just wanted it over. My own family, for the most part hails from the border states...Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, etc...

Both sides of it were torn apart by the war, it wasn't 'til just before ww1 that two of my granddads brothers, on my Dad's side, (Grandpa was the youngest of 13 children) spoke to one another. ...and they were hardly unique in that. Marriages were destroyed.

...and its marks are still with us to this day. God alone knows what it'd be like if the more vindictive of the Radical Rupublicans had had their way. Civil War II, in all likelihood.

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:21 PM
a reply to: Irishhaf

But If someone wants to make statements of fact (they were all traitors) but cannot provide a single factual case of a treason conviction from the civil war I am going to call him on it.

The fact that these men, hundreds if not thousands, of military and political officers (leaving off the ordinary enlisted men and civilian supporters), were not tried does not mean that they did not commit treason. They, each and every one of them knew they had committed treason and so did every person in the loyalist states.

There was nothing to be gained from mass trials. They were all punished to one degree or another. They all lost all civil rights and the ability to participate in the civil society to all but the most minor degree. There certainly weren't enough prisons to lock everybody up. Different groups had to jump through various hoops in order to regain those civil rights. Ordinary enlisted men could, in general, just swear a renewed oath to the United States to gain their pardon. The last group, the most highly placed officers, like Lee and Davis, were not able to gain pardon until President Johnson declared that reconstruction was complete and put forth the final and full pardon.

Notice that these folks were all PARDONED (the action of forgiving or being forgiven for an error or offence). It is the President's Constitutional prerogative to issue pardons. In 1974, Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon " a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

Notice the phrase: "has committed or may have committed or taken part in". Nixon never went to trial for his alleged crimes either, even though "As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States."

The pardon doesn't mean that Nixon didn't commit a crime, what it means is that the nation is better served by drawing a line underneath the incident and moving on. There would have been nothing to be gained by anyone to have all that intrigue played out yet again in a criminal court. It was already out in the open, everybody knew what had happened.

As Ford put it in his proclamation:

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

The reasoning is exactly the same in the case of Lee and the other rebel leadership, but the consequences are multiplied by thousands of cases.

Your argument that "if they were traitors they would have been tried and hung" simply does not account for the mood of the country after 4 years of bloody war. You seem to want to hang on to that as a talisman, I know, but it just doesn't reflect the reality 'on the ground'. President Johnson's final pardon decree named the crime quite clearly in the title: Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War and in the text:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

While it is true that they might have been tried, the fact is that the political will to do such a thing, the equivalent to mass purges in Soviet Union under Stalin for example, was not there. Yes there were those who thought it would be a good idea to exact revenge on the rebel leaders, but that view did not carry the day.

Reconstruction had a lot of problems both in design and implementation. Hindsight is 20-20 and knowing what we know today, maybe it would have been handled differently. After all we did such a great job of putting Iraq back together, didn't we?
edit on 12/7/2017 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/7/2017 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 11:22 PM
a reply to: rnaa

That's all very well and good.

However, the reasons for not pursuing what would have amounted to vendetta were sound, and far out-weighed the reasons for putting them on trial.

To put the military and civil leaders of an unsuccessful rebellion on trial would have run the risk of reigniting the war.


At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Lincoln's second inaugural.

The war was over, and it needed to stay over. Wounds needed healing. The stains of slavery needed to be removed, or the work started. To put the Souths leaders on trial would have been a mistake of Brobdingnagian proportions.

The men who fought in that bloody abattoir knew that, and so, too, did enough of their political masters.

posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: seagull

Here is my question, its just an odd thought with only a little bit of research done because well I never thought to look before.

Supreme court did not rule on the legality of Secession till 1869, when they rules it unconstitutional. (if their was an earlier ruling I did not find it)

To the best of my knowledge there was no law forbidding it at the time.

With the 10th covering anything not outlined for the Federal govt would revert to the States, how could it be treason?

Especially when you take into account about 90 years earlier the founding fathers broke away from their lawful monarch, kind of sets a quasi precedent for legality.

Arnold from the revolution is not a good example either, he switched sides in the middle of the war and actively tried to defeat the rebels.

The south did not attack the north till 1862, and yes before someone chimes in I know about Ft Sumter, but considering the state had left the union 5 months earlier it is arguable that what they did was reclaim their land.

Like I said just an odd thought that so many people immediately assume it was treason, but if no laws were broken, and the constitution did not forbid it, and they did not actively try to hurt the country they left is it really treason?

posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 07:49 AM
Were the Confederates any more treasonous than the original Rebels who defied the rule of King George?

From my point of view, they seemed to embody the same spirit of wanting self determination. I fail to understand the charges of treason laid at their feet.

Course, the post above said it more eloquently.

edit on 49pThu, 13 Jul 2017 07:55:49 -050020172017-07-13T07:55:49-05:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: addendum

posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: Irishhaf

To the best of my knowledge there was no law forbidding it at the time.

Dr. Wikipedia has an excellent discussion about exactly what you are asking. Secession in the United States

When the Constitution was adopted, people went through all the what-ifs.

One line of reasoning was:

... the example of New York's ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[27] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[27] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.
In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 – Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.


During the [Nullification] crisis, President Andrew Jackson, published his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, which made a case for the perpetuity of the Union; plus, he provided his views re the questions of "revolution" and "secession":[33]

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. [emphasis added] To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.[34]

Dubious legality of unilateral secession
The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[55] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[56] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[55] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[57] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[58] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.

I trust that answers your question. Unilateral secession was (and is) un-Constitutional according to the authors of the Constitution (and the Supreme Court later on). The illegality of secession by revolution is rendered moot by the success of the revolution, and firmly established by its failure.

The comparison of the Civil War to the American Revolution continues to miss one pertinent detail: had the Americans lost the Revolution they would have been hung as traitors. And every one of them was considered a traitor in England to the day they died.

Revolution is treason. Rebellion is treason. If you win your revolution, your adversaries have to eat your loss, if you lose you have to pay the price.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in